MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999933890 · doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaa002

Frailty to predict unplanned hospitalization, stroke, bleeding, and death in atrial fibrillation

2020· article· en· W2999933890 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Gugganig, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Darryl P. Leong, Pascal Meyre, Steffen Blum, Michael Coslovsky, Jürg H. Beer, Giorgio Moschovitis, D Müller, Daniela Anker, Nicolas Rodondi, Samuel Stempfel, Christian Mueller, Christine Meyer‐Zürn, Michael Kühne, David Conen, Stefan Osswald

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersUniversität BaselFoundation for Cardiovascular ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Confidence intervalInternal medicineProportional hazards modelProspective cohort studyCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and frailty are common, and the prevalence is expected to rise further. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of frailty and the ability of a frailty index (FI) to predict unplanned hospitalizations, stroke, bleeding, and death in patients with AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with known AF were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in Switzerland. Information on medical history, lifestyle factors, and clinical measurements were obtained. The primary outcome was unplanned hospitalization; secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, bleeding, and stroke. The FI was measured using a cumulative deficit approach, constructed according to previously published criteria and divided into three groups (non-frail, pre-frail, and frail). The association between frailty and outcomes was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression models. Of the 2369 included patients, prevalence of pre-frailty and frailty was 60.7% and 10.6%, respectively. Pre-frailty and frailty were associated with a higher risk of unplanned hospitalizations [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-2.22; P < 0.001; and aHR 3.59, 95% CI 2.78-4.63, P < 0.001], all-cause mortality (aHR 5.07, 95% CI 2.43-10.59; P < 0.001; and aHR 16.72, 95% CI 7.75-36.05; P < 0.001), and bleeding (aHR 1.53, 95% CI 1.11-2.13; P = 0.01; and aHR 2.46, 95% CI 1.61-3.77; P < 0.001). Frailty, but not pre-frailty, was associated with a higher risk of stroke (aHR 3.29, 95% CI 1.2-8.39; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Over two-thirds of patients with AF are pre-frail or frail. These patients have a high risk for unplanned hospitalizations and other adverse events. These findings emphasize the need to carefully evaluate these patients. However, whether screening for pre-frailty and frailty and targeted prevention strategies improve outcomes needs to be shown in future studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier number: NCT02105844.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations57
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical OutcomesSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207