Machine learning for atrial fibrillation risk prediction in patients with sleep apnea and coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients with sleep apnea (SA) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are at higher risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) than the general population. Our objectives were: to evaluate the role of CAD and SA in determining AF risk through cluster and survival analysis, and to develop a risk model for predicting AF. Methods Electronic medical record (EMR) database from 22,302 individuals including 10,202 individuals with AF, CAD, and SA, and 12,100 individuals without these diseases were analyzed using K-means clustering technique; k-nearest neighbor (kNN) algorithm and survival analysis. Age, sex, and diseases developed for each individual during 9 years were used for cluster and survival analysis. Results The risk models for AF, CAD, and SA were identified with high accuracy and sensitivity (0.98). Cluster analysis showed that CAD and high blood pressure (HBP) are the most prevalent diseases in the AF group, HBP is the most prevalent disease in CAD; and HBP and CAD are the most prevalent diseases in the SA group. Survival analysis demonstrated that individuals with HBP, CAD, and SA had a 1.5-fold increased risk of developing AF [hazard ratio (HR): 1.49, 95% CI: 1.18–1.87, p = 0.0041; HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.09–1.96, p = 0.01; HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.22–1.94, p = 0.0039, respectively] and individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) developed AF approximately 50% earlier than patients without these comorbidities in a period of 7 years (HR: 3.36, 95% CI: 1.46–7.73, p = 0.0023). Comorbidities that contributed to develop AF earlier in females compared to males in the group of 50–64 years were HBP (HR: 3.75 95% CI: 1.08–13, p = 0.04) CAD and SA in the group of 60–75 years were (HR: 2.4 95% CI: 1.18–4.86, p = 0.02; HR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.14–5.52, p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusion Machine learning based algorithms demonstrated that CAD, SA, HBP, and CKD are significant risk factors for developing AF in a Latin–American population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".