MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387245073 · doi:10.7326/m23-1411

Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence in Patients With Transient New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation Detected During Hospitalization for Noncardiac Surgery or Medical Illness

2023· article· en· W4387245073 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William F. McIntyre, Maria E. Vadakken, Stuart J. Connolly, Pablo Mendoza, A. Lengyel, N. Latendresse, Alex Grinvalds, Chinthanie Ramasundarahettige, J. Gabriel Acosta, Kevin J. Um, Jason D. Roberts, David Conen, Jorge Wong, P.J. Devereaux, Emilie P. Belley‐Côté, Richard Whitlock, Jeff S. Healey

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationSinus rhythmCohortInternal medicineCohort studyPopulationPediatricsCardiologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often detected for the first time in patients who are hospitalized for another reason. Long-term risks for AF recurrence in these patients are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To estimate risk for AF recurrence in patients with new-onset AF during a hospitalization for noncardiac surgery or medical illness compared with a matched population without AF. DESIGN: Matched cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03221777). SETTING: Three academic hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The study enrolled patients hospitalized for noncardiac surgery or medical illness who had transient new-onset AF. For each participant, an age- and sex-matched control participant with no history of AF from the same hospital ward was recruited. All participants left the hospital in sinus rhythm. MEASUREMENTS: 14-day electrocardiographic (ECG) monitor at 1 and 6 months and telephone assessment at 1, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was AF lasting at least 30 seconds on the monitor or captured by ECG 12-lead during routine care at 12 months. RESULTS: = 40) and their matched control participants and limiting to AF events detected by the patch ECG monitor, recurrent AF was detected in 32.3% (CI, 23.1% to 41.5%) of participants with transient new-onset AF and 3.0% (CI, 0% to 6.4%) of matched control participants. LIMITATIONS: Generalizability is limited, and the study was underpowered to evaluate subgroups and clinical predictors. CONCLUSION: Among patients who have transient new-onset AF during a hospitalization for noncardiac surgery or medical illness, approximately 1 in 3 will have recurrent AF within 1 year. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Peer-reviewed grants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207