Sex differences of vascular brain lesions in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine sex differences in prevalence, volume and distribution of vascular brain lesions on MRI among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, we included 1743 patients with AF (27% women) from the multicentre Swiss Atrial Fibrillation study (SWISS-AF) with available baseline brain MRI. We compared presence and total volume of large non-cortical or cortical infarcts (LNCCIs), small non-cortical infarcts, microbleeds (MB) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH, Fazekas score ≥2 for moderate or severe degree) between men and women with multivariable logistic regression. We generated voxel-based probability maps to assess the anatomical distribution of lesions. RESULTS: We found no strong evidence for an association of female sex with the prevalence of all ischaemic infarcts (LNCCI and SNCI combined; adjusted OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.09, p=0.22), MB (adjusted OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, p=0.52) and moderate or severe WMH (adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, p=0.27). However, total WMH volume was 17% larger among women than men (multivariable adjusted multiplicative effect 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.35; p=0.04). Lesion probability maps showed a right hemispheric preponderance of ischaemic infarcts in both men and women, while WMH were distributed symmetrically. CONCLUSION: Women had higher white matter disease burden than men, while volume and prevalence of other lesions did not differ. Our findings highlight the importance of controlling risk factors for cerebral small vessel disease in patients with AF, especially among women.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".