Influence of frailty syndrome on anxiety and depression of patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a chronic disease whose somatic symptoms cause patients to feel anxiety. Anxiety and depression are associated with recurrent episodes of AF and may exacerbate the symptoms of arrhythmia, increasing the risk of sudden complications and death. The evidence suggests that frailty leads to cognitive decline and increased prevalence of anxiety and depression. However, there is little information on what increases the risk of frailty syndrome in atrial fibrillation. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of frailty syndrome on anxiety and depression in patients with AF. Material and methods. The study was conducted on 158 patients with AF (including 78 women) aged 70.4 ± 7.6 years. Standardized tools were used: the Edmonton frailty scale (EFS) and the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS-M) to assess and compare anxiety, depression, and frail and non-frail patients with AF. Results. The average ESF score was 8.555.0. 53.2% had frailty syndrome, 10.1% were vulnerable and 36.7% had no frailty syndrome. Mean level of anxiety was 10.253.0 and depression was 9.83.85. In comparative analysis patients with frailty syndrome had more often high level of anxiety (73.8% vs. 18.9%, p < 0.001) and high level of depression (72.6% vs. 2.7%; p < 0.001) in comparison to patients without frailty syndrome. In multivariate analysis the independent determinants of frailty syndrome were longer duration of AF (β=4.649, p = 0.001), anxiety (β=2.4727, p = 0.036) and depression (β=5.5712, p < 0.001). Conclusions. Patients with AF have high level of FS and anxiety and depression, and FS exacerbates the symptoms of anxiety and depression. Independent determinants of frailty syndrome are longer duration of AF, anxiety and depression.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".