MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110100213 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.0352

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

2020· article· en· W3110100213 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, M Kuehne, Stefan Osswald, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationHazard ratioInternal medicineConfidence intervalCohortProspective cohort studyProportional hazards modelFramingham Risk ScoreCohort studyDiabetes mellitusHeart failureCardiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a high risk of hospital admissions, but there is no validated prediction tool to identify those at highest risk. Purpose To develop and externally validate a risk score for all-cause hospital admissions in patients with AF. Methods We used a prospective cohort of 2387 patients with established AF as derivation cohort. Independent risk factors were selected from a broad range of variables using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method fit to a Cox regression model. The developed risk score was externally validated in a separate prospective, multicenter cohort of 1300 AF patients. Results In the derivation cohort, 891 patients (37.3%) were admitted to the hospital over a median follow-up 2.0 years. In the validation cohort, hospital admissions occurred in 719 patients (55.3%) during a median follow-up 1.9 years. The most important predictors for admission were age (75–79 years: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.00–1.77; 80–84 years: aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.12–2.03; ≥85 years: aHR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35–2.61), prior pulmonary vein isolation (aHR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60–0.90), hypertension (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.99–1.36), diabetes (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17–1.62), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02–1.37), prior stroke/TIA (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10–1.50), heart failure (aHR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.04–1.41), peripheral artery disease (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.06–1.63), cancer (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13–1.57), renal failure (aHR, 1.18, 95% CI, 1.01–1.38), and previous falls (aHR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.16–1.78). 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 AF patients. This prediction tool selects high-risk patients who may benefit from preventive interventions. The Admit-AF risk score Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): The Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant numbers 33CS30_1148474 and 33CS30_177520), the Foundation for Cardiovascular Research Basel and the University of Basel

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)0.009
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207