Association between atrial fibrillation burden and cognitive function in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence has demonstrated an association between clinical atrial fibrillation (AF) and cognitive impairment. This study aimed to further clarify the impact of AF burden on cognitive function based on detailed electrophysiological recordings and standardized assessments of cognitive function. METHODS: This prospective cohort study, conducted at the Cardiac Electrophysiology Clinic of a tertiary center, included patients with non-valvular AF. AF burden was evaluated using 14-day patch-based electrocardiography. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). RESULTS: -VASc score, AF burden, and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale scores. The association between MoCA scores and AF burden remained significant after adjustment for demographic characteristics, underlying diseases, and echocardiographic parameters (standardized beta coefficient: -0.159, 95% confidence interval: -0.020 to -0.004, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: AF burden is associated with cognitive function in patients with AF. Further studies are required to determine whether reducing AF burden can preserve cognitive function in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".