Effect of Prolonged and Substantial Weight Loss on Incident Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Overweight and obesity are associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), and bariatric surgery (BS), able to induce sustained and prolonged weight loss, might represent the ideal treatment in the prevention of AF. Previous studies could not definitely establish a role for weight loss and BS in preventing incident AF so far. During the last few years, several studies on the effect of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular diseases have been published, and we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of weight loss through BS in the prevention of incident AF in obesity. Methods. This meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guideline. Eligible studies were controlled trials evaluating the appearance of atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing weight loss through BS as compared with patients receiving medical treatment. Quality of studies was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and risk-of-bias was evaluated employing the Egger’s test. All analyses were run by a random-effects model according to Hartung and Knapp and sensitivity analyses were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed through Q and I2 statistics for each comparison, and potential publication bias was formally investigated. Results. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis, and the overall result was statistically significant [OR = 0.665 (0.475–0.929), p = 0.017], with significant heterogeneity (Q = 48.98, p < 0.001; I2 = 81.6%), but with no publication bias. In sensitivity analyses, the amount of weight loss, percentage of patients with diabetes and value of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, were all associated with significance of effect. Since age was different in one study, a sensitivity analysis was performed by excluding this study; OR was similar [OR = 0.608 (0.454–0.814), p < 0.001]; heterogeneity was reduced but still significant (Q = 35.74, p < 0.001, I2 = 77.6%) and again no publication bias was detected. Conclusions. Bariatric surgery as compared to medical treatment is associated with reduced appearance of incident AF.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".