MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982247124 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0625

P1876Atrial fibrillation related symptoms and cardiovascular outcomes

2019· article· en· W2982247124 on OpenAlexaff
Philipp Krisai, Steffen Blum, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Jürg H. Beer, Giorgio Moschovitis, Fabienne Witassek, Richard Kobza, Nicolas Rodondi, Adil Mahmood, Christine S. Zuern, M Kuehne, Stefan Osswald, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationHazard ratioInternal medicineHeart failureStroke (engine)Myocardial infarctionClinical endpointCohortProportional hazards modelCardiologyProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Comprehensive information on the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF)-related symptoms and quality of life (QoL) on adverse outcomes is sparse. Purpose We aimed to investigate whether AF-related symptoms and/or QoL are associated with cardiovascular outcomes in a large cohort of AF patients. Methods A total of 3902 participants with documented AF from two nationwide prospective cohort studies in Switzerland were included. Information on AF-related symptoms was assessed yearly by standardized questionnaires, QoL was quantified using a visual analog scale (0–100, with higher scores indicating better QoL). The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke and systemic embolism. The secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure and myocardial infarction. We assessed associations using multivariable, time-updated Cox proportional-hazards models including age, sex, study cohort, history of heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, prior stroke, prior myocardial infarction, vascular disease and prior catheter ablation for AF as covariates. Results Mean age was 72 years, and 72% were male. The median QoL score was 75 points, and 2572 (66%) participants had AF-related symptoms. Symptomatic individuals were younger (71 vs 75 years) and had more often paroxysmal AF (29 vs 23%) (p for both <0.001). The most frequent symptoms were palpitations (42%), dyspnea (25%) and fatigue (18%). In multivariable, time-updated models, the hazard ratio (HR) was 1.24 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.72; 2.11, p=0.43) for the primary endpoint and HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.65; 1.06, p=0.14) for the secondary endpoint in symptomatic vs non-symptomatic individuals. There was a significant, inverse association for a 5-point increase in the QoL score with both the primary (HR 0.94 (95% CI 0.88; 0.99), p=0.04) and secondary (HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.88; 0.93), p<0.0001) endpoints. Conclusions AF-related symptoms are not associated with adverse cardiovascular events in AF patients. In contrast, QoL is inversely associated with to adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→