Health-related quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation: The role of symptoms, comorbidities, and the type of atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to analyse health related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients with different atrial fibrillation (AF) types and to identify patient characteristics, symptoms and comorbidities that influence HRQoL. METHODS: We used baseline data from the Swiss Atrial Fibrillation (Swiss-AF) study, a prospective multicentre observational cohort study conducted in 13 clinical centres in Switzerland. Between April 2014 and August 2017, 2415 AF patients were recruited. Patients were included in this analysis if they had baseline HRQoL data as assessed with EQ-5D-based utilities and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Patient characteristics and HRQoL were described stratified by AF type. The impact of symptoms, comorbidities and socio-economic factors on HRQoL was analysed using multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: Based on 2412 patients with available baseline HRQoL data, the lowest unadjusted mean HRQoL was found in patients with permanent AF regardless of whether measured with utilities (paroxysmal: 0.83, persistent: 0.84, permanent: 0.80, p<0.001) or VAS score (paroxysmal: 73.6, persistent: 72.8, permanent: 69.2, p<0.001). In multivariable analysis of utilities and VAS scores, higher European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) score, recurrent falls and several comorbidities showed a strong negative impact on HRQoL while AF type was no longer associated with HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors turned out to influence HRQoL in AF patients. After controlling for several comorbidities, the EHRA score was one of the strongest predictors independent of AF type. The results may be valuable for better patient assessment and provide a reference point for further QoL and health economic analyses in AF populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".