MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 13284: Cardiac Rehabilitation, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, and Risk of Incident Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

2020· article· en· W3098840050 on OpenAlexaff
Hongwei Liu, Danielle A. Southern, Ross Arena, Tolulope T. Sajobi, Sandeep Aggarwal, Stephen B. Wilton

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessInternal medicineHazard ratioAtrial fibrillationCardiologyMetabolic equivalentCoronary artery diseaseProportional hazards modelIncidence (geometry)RevascularizationRisk factorConfidence intervalMyocardial infarctionPhysical therapyPhysical activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) can reduce cardiovascular risk factors and improve CRF. However, the relationship between CR, CRF, and risk of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with cardiovascular disease is less clear. Objectives: To examine the association of CR completion and associated CRF changes with the incidence of new-onset AF in patients referred to a CR program after coronary revascularization. Methods and Results: We included 11,662 patients without a history of AF, referred to CR after coronary revascularization between January 1996 to March 2016. The mean age was 60.9 ± 10.9 years and 80.6% were males. Incident AF was ascertained by linkage with provincial administrative data sources and the local ECG repository. Competing-risks regression was used to estimate the association of CR completion and CRF with incident AF, with death as a competing event. During a median follow-up of 4.8 years, 618 patients developed AF, and 638 died. In adjusted models, CR completion was not associated with the risk of incident AF [Hazard ratio (HR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-1.15]. However, both baseline CRF [HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.90 per metabolic equivalent (MET)] and CRF gain (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94 per MET increase) for those who completed the CR program were associated with a lower risk of incident AF (Table 1). Conclusions: In patients referred to CR, CR completion was not associated with a reduced risk of incident AF. However, both higher baseline CRF and CR-associated CRF gains had a dose-dependent protective association with incident AF. Therefore, it is important to maximize CRF gains during the CR program. Further attention to AF-specific risk factor modification (i.e., obesity, sleep apnea, and alcohol) may be required to enhance CR program efficacy for this outcome, especially in patients with lower baseline CRF.

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207