MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165055057 · doi:10.1093/europace/euab116.139

Device-detected atrial fibrillation before and after acute cardiac events: insights from ASSERT

2021· article· en· W3165055057 on OpenAlexaff
WF Mcintyre, J Wang, EP Belley-Cote, Roberts Jd, AP Benz, David Conen, P.J. Devereaux, JA Wong, MK Wang, R P Whitlock, SJ Connolly, J. Healey

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionOdds ratioPercutaneous coronary interventionConfidence intervalConventional PCICardiovascular eventCardiac surgeryUnstable angina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) that is first detected concurrently with or shortly after another cardiac event is often thought to be caused by acute cardiac injury, and therefore reversible. Methods ASSERT enrolled patients >65 years old with hypertension and a pacemaker, but without known AF. We evaluated participants who had a cardiac event [angina/myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac catheterization/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), cardiac surgery or other (e.g. pericarditis, hypertensive crisis)] and compared the prevalence of device-detected AF before and after these events. Results Among 2580 participants, 178 (6.9%) had at least one cardiac event over a mean 2.5 years of follow-up. In the 30 days following a first cardiac event, the prevalence of device-detected AF >6 min was 12.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9%-18.1%), which was higher than in the 30 days before the event (12.4% versus 4.5%, P = 0.004) (Figure 1). The prevalence of device-detected AF following the event was comparable across event subtypes (MI: 13.8%, 95%CI 7.9-18.1%; PCI: 6.9%, 95%CI 1.9-16.7%; Surgery: 20.0%, 95%CI 5.7-43.7%; Other: 18.5%, 95%CI 6.3-38.1%). There was a significant association between device-detected AF in the 6 months before a cardiac event and device-detected AF in the 30 days after a cardiac event: odds ratio (OR, adjusted for CHA2DS2-VASc score) for episodes >6 min 7.07 (95%CI 2.07-24.19; P = 0.002); adjusted OR for episodes >24 hours: 11.41 (95%CI 1.47-88.43; p = 0.020). Conclusions Acute cardiac events are associated with an increase in the prevalence of device-detected AF. These episodes are associated with a prior history of device-detected AF. Abstract Figure 1

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)0.000
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207