A systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the impact of COPD on atrial fibrillation patient outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COPD is often accompanied by extra-pulmonary manifestations such as thrombo-embolic and hemorrhagic events, the disease is linked with atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the current review was to assess the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing overall mortality, cardiovascular death, and other outcomes for AF patients with and without COPD. The data retrieved were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The hazard ratios (HR) obtained for mortality in presence of COPD were pooled to meta-analyze using generic inverse variance function of RevMan 5.3 software. The association of various risk factors and HRs were pooled with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of the included studies was assessed using Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS). RESULTS: The hazard ratios (HR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of seven studies were included. The pooled HR for the impact of COPD on overall mortality and cardiovascular mortality in AF patients was found to be 1.70 (95% CI: 1.47, 1.97; p<0.0001) and 1.80 (95% CI: 1.29, 2.52; p = 0.0005), respectively. Hemorrhagic events were significantly higher in AF patients with COPD (Odds ratio (OR): 1.84; 95% CI: 1.58, 2.14; p<0.00001). CONCLUSION: COPD has a deleterious impact on AF progression in terms of overall mortality, cardiovascular death, stroke and hemorrhagic complications.
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 | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".