Mid-term changes in cognitive functions in patients with atrial fibrillation: a longitudinal analysis of the Swiss-AF cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Longitudinal association studies of atrial fibrillation (AF) and cognitive functions have shown an unclear role of AF-type and often differ in methodological aspects. We therefore aim to investigate longitudinal changes in cognitive functions in association with AF-type (non-paroxysmal vs. paroxysmal) and comorbidities in the Swiss-AF cohort. Methods: Seven cognitive measures were administered up to five times between 2014 and 2022. Age-education standardized scores were calculated and association between longitudinal change in scores and baseline AF-type investigated using linear mixed-effects models. Associations between AF-type and time to cognitive drop, an observed score of at least one standard deviation below individual's age-education standardized cognitive scores at baseline, were studied using Cox proportional hazard models of each cognitive test, censoring patients at their last measurement. Models were adjusted for baseline covariates. Results: 2,415 AF patients (mean age 73.2 years; 1,080 paroxysmal, 1,335 non-paroxysmal AF) participated in this Swiss multicenter prospective cohort study. Mean cognitive scores increased longitudinally (median follow-up 3.97 years). Non-paroxysmal AF patients showed smaller longitudinal increases in Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), Cognitive Construct Score (CoCo)and Trail Making Test part B (TMT-B) scores vs. paroxysmal AF patients. Diabetes, history of stroke/TIA and depression were associated with worse performance on all cognitive tests. No differences in time to cognitive drop were observed between AF-types in any cognitive test. Conclusion: This study indicated preserved cognitive functioning in AF patients, best explained by practice effects. Smaller practice effects were found in non-paroxysmal AF patients in the DSST, TMT-B and the CoCo and could indicate a marker of subtle cognitive decline. As diabetes, history of stroke/TIA and depression-but not AF-type-were associated with cognitive drop, more attention should be given to risk factors and underlying mechanisms of 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".