Predictive value of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cognitive functions in patients with chronic heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) directly leads to a cognitive function decline regardless of the cerebrovascular fatal events, but it is unclear whether the sinus rhythm restoration and reducing the AF burden can reduce the rate of this decreasement. Data on the effect of radiofrequency ablation on patients’ cognitive functions are conflicting and need to be studied. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prognostic value of atrial fibrillation radiofrequency catheter ablation on cognitive functions in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. The impact of AF radiofrequency catheter ablation on cognitive function in 136 patients (mean age 59.7 ± 8.6 years) with chronic heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and compared with 58 patients in the control group (58.2 ± 8.1 years), which did not perform ablation and continued the tactics of drug antiarrhythmic therapy was investigated. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Test (MoCA) at the enrollment stage and 2 years follow-up. Decreased cognitive function was defined as a MoCA test score < 26 points, cognitive impairment < 23 points. Two years after the intervention, there was a positive dynamics (baseline MoCA test — 25,1 ± 2,48, 2-year follow-up — 26,51 ± 2,33, p < 0,001) in the ablation group and negative in the control group (25,47 ± 2,85 and 24,57 ± 3,61, respectively, p < 0,001). Pre-ablation cognitive impairment was significantly associated with improved cognitive function 2 years after AF ablation according to polynomial regression analysis. The obtained data suggest a probable positive effect of AF radiofrequency ablation on cognitive functions in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".