MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004984171 · doi:10.1097/jcn.0000000000000653

The Symptom Experience of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Before Their Initial Diagnosis

2020· article· en· W3004984171 on OpenAlex
Ryan Wilson, Kathy L. Rush, Linda Hatt, R. Colin Reid, Carol Laberge

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThematic analysisAtrial fibrillationPerceptionCognitionRehabilitationQualitative researchClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common form of dysrhythmia, steadily increases in prevalence with age. If left untreated, AF significantly increases the risk of stroke, heart failure, and death. Despite the increasing prevalence, there are significant research gaps in the prediagnosis symptom experiences of patients with AF. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to explore the prediagnosis symptom experience of patients with AF. METHODS: Participants 19 years or older with AF diagnosed in the previous year were recruited (n = 26) from outpatient cardiac rehabilitation and AF clinics. Semistructured interviews, broadly guided by the Symptom Experience Model, explored perceptions, evaluations, and responses to AF symptoms. Thematic analysis used a 2-step approach, deductively coding for participants' symptom perceptions, evaluations, and responses and inductively coding within these broader Symptom Experience Model concepts. RESULTS: Perception involved awareness of bodily sensations, ranging from imperceptible noticing to commanding attention, heightened by rest and activity. In evaluation, participants used self-derived theories to explain their symptoms, gathered evidence to support/refute their theories, and formulated alternative theories as symptoms changed over time. Responses consisted of nontreatment, self-treatment, and health seeking; most participants needed repeated healthcare visits before diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The current study identified challenges participants experienced in developing awareness of their AF symptoms, the complex cognitive processes associated with evaluation, and barriers that made it difficult to respond to AF symptoms in a timely manner. Understanding the prediagnosis symptom experience from the patient's perspective is essential for the enhancement of current AF screening practices.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.257 · 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