Abstract 14749: Assessment for Neurocognitive Change After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the neurocognitive effects of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. However, these studies have found mixed results. Theoretically, silent peri-procedural stroke might yield a worsening of neurocognitive function, though normalization of heart rhythms might yield improvement. The purpose of this study was to prospectively follow patients after catheter-ablation for paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation with serial telephone-based Montreal Cognitive Assessments (t-MoCA) over 6 months to evaluate for changes in neurocognitive function. Hypothesis: No change in t-MoCA scores between baseline and 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Methods: All consenting patients who underwent first time or redo catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (with either radiofrequency- or cryo-ablation) between January 2021 and May 2022 were enrolled in the study. A t-MoCA was conducted to measure cognitive function at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months from the date of catheter ablation. Only patients who completed at least 1 month of follow-up were included for analysis. Paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA were used to assess for significant differences in t-MoCA scores. Results: 42 patients met criteria for analysis. Paired two-tailed t-test values at 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months demonstrated an increase in t-MoCA score by 2.17 (n=42, p = 0.036), 3.08 (n=27, p = 0.005), and 3.06 (n=24, p = 0.006) respectively when compared to baseline. One-way ANOVA testing showed no significant differences between the 1-month, 3-month, and 6-month scores (p = 0.73). Conclusions: Patients undergoing first time or redo catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation had significant improvement in t-MoCA scores at 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months post-ablation. The improvement seen at 1-month was sustained throughout the 6-months of follow-up. Further long-term assessment is needed to determine if this effect persists over a longer period of time and to potentially correlate these findings with post-ablation atrial fibrillation recurrence.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".