Stroke risk prediction in patients with atrial fibrillation with and without rheumatic heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD), especially mitral stenosis, are assumed to be at high risk of stroke, irrespective of other factors. We aimed to re-evaluate stroke risk factors in a contemporary cohort of AF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data of 15 400 AF patients presenting to an emergency department and who were enrolled in the global RE-LY AF registry, representing 47 countries from all inhabited continents. Follow-up occurred at 1 year after enrolment. A total of 1788 (11.6%) patients had RHD. These patients were younger (51.4±15.7 vs. 67.8±13.6 years), more likely to be female (66.2% vs. 44.7%) and had a lower mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (2.1±1.7 vs. 3.7±2.2) as compared to patients without RHD (all P<0.001). Significant mitral stenosis (average mean transmitral gradient 11.5±6.5 mmHg) was the predominant valve lesion in those with RHD (59.6%). Patients with RHD had a higher baseline rate of anticoagulation use (60.4% vs. 45.2%, P<0.001). Unadjusted stroke rates at 1 year were 2.8% and 4.1% for patients with and without RHD, respectively. The performance of the CHA2DS2-VASc score was modest in both groups [stroke at 1 year, c-statistics 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.78 and 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.66, respectively]. In the overall cohort, advanced age, female sex, prior stroke, tobacco use, and non-use of anticoagulation were predictors for stroke (all P<0.05). Mitral stenosis was not associated with stroke risk (adjusted odds ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.67-1.72, P=0.764). CONCLUSION: The performance of the CHA2DS2-VASc score was modest in AF patients both with and without RHD. In this cohort, moderate-to-severe mitral stenosis was not an independent risk factor for stroke.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".