Coordinating Health Care With Artificial Intelligence–Supported Technology for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasingly common chronic health condition for which integrated care that is multidisciplinary and patient-centric is recommended yet challenging to implement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of Coordinating Health Care With Artificial Intelligence-Supported Technology in AF is to evaluate the feasibility and potential efficacy of a digital intervention (AF-Support) comprising preprogrammed automated telephone calls (artificial intelligence conversational technology), SMS text messages, and emails, as well as an educational website, to support patients with AF in self-managing their condition and coordinate primary and secondary care follow-up. METHODS: Coordinating Health Care With Artificial Intelligence-Supported Technology in AF is a 6-month randomized controlled trial of adult patients with AF (n=385), who will be allocated in a ratio of 4:1 to AF-Support or usual care, with postintervention semistructured interviews. The primary outcome is AF-related quality of life, and the secondary outcomes include cardiovascular risk factors, outcomes, and health care use. The 4:1 allocation design enables a detailed examination of the feasibility, uptake, and process of the implementation of AF-Support. Participants with new or ongoing AF will be recruited from hospitals and specialist-led clinics in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. AF-Support has been co-designed with clinicians, researchers, information technologists, and patients. Automated telephone calls will occur 7 times, with the first call triggered to commence 24 to 48 hours after enrollment. Calls follow a standard flow but are customized to vary depending on patients' responses. Calls assess AF symptoms, and participants' responses will trigger different system responses based on prespecified protocols, including the identification of red flags requiring escalation. Randomization will be performed electronically, and allocation concealment will be ensured. Because of the nature of this trial, only outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded. For the primary outcome, groups will be compared using an analysis of covariance adjusted for corresponding baseline values. Randomized trial data analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle, and qualitative data will be thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Ethics approval was granted by the Western Sydney Local Health District Human Ethics Research Committee, and recruitment started in December 2020. As of December 2021, a total of 103 patients had been recruited. CONCLUSIONS: This study will address the gap in knowledge with respect to the role of postdischarge digital care models for supporting patients with AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000174886; https://www.australianclinicaltrials.gov.au/anzctr/trial/ACTRN12621000174886. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34470.
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 | 0.040 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.015 |
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".