Associations of subclinical heart failure and atrial fibrillation with mild cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional study in a subclinical heart failure screening programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Effective identification and management of subclinical left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (LVD) and subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) by screening elderly populations might be compromised by mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We sought to characterise the prevalence and profile of MCI and evaluate associations with LV and left atrial (LA) dysfunction and AF, in a trial of screening for subclinical LVD and AF. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Australian, community-based intervention trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥65 years with ≥1 LVD risk factors without ischaemic heart disease (n=337). OUTCOME MEASURES: The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) was obtained. Subclinical LVD was defined as echocardiographic global longitudinal strain ≤16%, diastolic dysfunction or LV hypertrophy; abnormal LA reservoir strain (LARS) was defined as <24%. Subclinical AF was detected using a single-lead portable electrocardiographic device in those without pre-existing AF who gave consent (n=293). RESULTS: Subclinical LVD was found in 155 (46%), abnormal LARS in 9 (3.6%) and subclinical AF in 11 (3.8%). MoCA score consistent with MCI (<26) was found in 101 (30%); executive function (69%) and delayed recall (93%), were the most frequently abnormal domains. Compared with normal cognition, MCI was associated with non-adherence to AF screening (25% vs 40%, p=0.01). In multivariable logistic regression modelling, educational achievement, systolic blood pressure, body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio were independently associated with MCI. However, neither subclinical AF nor any measure of cardiac dysfunction, were associated with MCI. CONCLUSIONS: The 30% prevalence of MCI among elderly subjects with risk factors for subclinical LVD and AF has important implications for screening strategies and management. However, MCI is not associated with subclinical myocardial dysfunction nor subclinical AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617000116325).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".