Managing With Atrial Fibrillation: An Exploratory Model-Based Cluster Analysis of Clinical and Personal Patient Characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Examining characteristics of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) has the potential to help in identifying groups of patients who might benefit from different management approaches. Methods: -VASc score, age, AF symptoms, overall health, mental health, AF knowledge, perceived stress, household and recreation activity, overall AF quality of life, and AF symptom treatment satisfaction. Follow-up analyses examined differences between the cluster groups in additional clinical variables. Results: Evidence emerged for both 2- and 4-cluster solutions. The 2-cluster solution involved a contrast between patients who were doing well on all variables (n = 129; 66%) vs those doing less well (n = 67; 34%). The 4-cluster solution provided a closer-up view of the data, showing that the group doing less well was split into 3 meaningfully different subgroups of patients who were managing in different ways. The final 4 clusters produced were as follows: (i) doing well; (ii) stressed and discontented; (iii) struggling and dissatisfied; and (iv) satisfied and complacent. Conclusions: Patients with AF can be accurately classified into distinct, natural groupings that vary in clinically important ways. Among the patients who were not managing well with AF, we found 3 distinct subgroups of patients who may benefit from tailored approaches to AF management and support. The tailoring of treatment approaches to specific personal and/or behavioural patterns, alongside clinical patterns, holds potential to improve patient outcomes (eg, treatment satisfaction).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".