MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013759690 · doi:10.1177/2047487320915350

The Admit-AF risk score: A clinical risk score for predicting hospital admissions in patients with atrial fibrillation

2020· article· en· W3013759690 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Meyre, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Steffen Blum, Michael Coslovsky, Jürg H. Beer, Giorgio Moschovitis, Nicolas Rodondi, Oliver Baretella, Richard Kobza, Christian Sticherling, Leo H. Bonati, Matthias Schwenkglenks, Michael Kühne, Stefan Osswald, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersSchweizerische HerzstiftungSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalCohortProspective cohort studyProportional hazards modelCardiologyHeart failureCohort studyStroke (engine)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To develop and externally validate a risk score for all-cause hospital admissions in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a prospective cohort of 2387 patients with established atrial fibrillation as derivation cohort. Independent risk factors were selected from a broad range of variables using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method fit to a Cox model. The risk score was validated in a separate prospective cohort of 1300 atrial fibrillation patients. The incidence of all-cause hospital admission was 19.1 per 100 person-years in the derivation cohort and it was 26.1 per 100 person-years in the validation cohort. The most important predictors for admission were age (75-79 years: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.78; 80-84 years: aHR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.03; ≥85 years: aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.36-2.62), prior pulmonary vein isolation (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58-0.88), hypertension (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99-1.36), diabetes (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17-1.62), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.36), prior stroke/transient ischaemic attack (aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18-1.47), heart failure (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39), peripheral artery disease (aHR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.67), cancer (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.12-1.57), renal failure (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.99-1.37) and previous falls (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74). A risk score with these variables was well calibrated, and achieved a C-index of 0.64 in the derivation and 0.59 in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors were associated with hospital admissions in atrial fibrillation patients. This prediction tool selects high-risk patients who may benefit from preventive interventions.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207