MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388595871 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.483

Biomarkers for the prediction of cognitive decline in atrial fibrillation patients

2023· article· en· W4388595871 on OpenAlexaffabout
Philipp Krisai, Matthias Eberl, Michael Coslovsky, Nicolas Rodondi, Patricia Chocano-Bedoya, Richard Kobza, Giorgio Moschovitis, Elia Rigamonti, Jürg H. Beer, A Mueller, Tobias Reichlin, David Conen, Stefan Osswald, Leo H. Bonati, M Kuehne

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersSchweizerische HerzstiftungUniversität BaselFoundation for Cardiovascular ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCognitive declineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationCognitionUnivariate analysisLogistic regressionCardiologyPopulationStroke (engine)Cognitive impairmentMultivariate analysisDiseaseDementiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are at increased risk of cognitive decline. Biomarkers might help to identify the highest risk patients. Purpose To investigate associations of a broad panel of biomarkers with cognitive decline in a large population of AF patients. Methods We enrolled 1440 AF patients with available baseline biomarkers and cognitive testing by the Montreal Cognitive assessment (MoCA) score at inclusion and at ≥2 yearly follow-ups over three years. Cognition over time was assessed by modelling of a slope over three years. Cognitive decline was defined as a decreasing slope based on 1 standard deviation of the baseline MoCa score. We investigated the associations of biomarkers and age with cognitive decline in univariate logistic regression models by AUCs. We used Lasso modelling to build combined prediction models with biomarkers, clinical variables and both. Results Mean age was 72 years, 75% were male, 47% had paroxysmal AF and 90% were anticoagulated. During a follow-up of 3 years, cognitive decline occurred in 93 patients (6.5%). Patients with cognitive decline were older (77 vs 72 years, p=0.001), more often had paroxysmal AF (50 vs 47%, p=0.007) or a history of stroke (24 vs 11%, p=0.001), but there were no differences in anticoagulation (94 vs 90%, p=0.289). The three biomarkers with the highest univariate AUC for cognitive decline were Growth Differentiation Factor (GDF)-15 (0.67 [0.62-0.72]), Cystatin C (0.67 [0.61-0.72]) and high-sensitivity Troponin T (0.65 [0.60-0.70]), while age had the highest overall AUC (0.70 [0.64-0.75]) (Figure). The combined prediction model with the highest AUC of 0.69 (0.67-0.72) included GDF-15, age and baseline cognition. Conclusion Over 3 years, 6.5% of AF patients had cognitive decline despite a high rate of anticoagulation. Besides age, GDF-15, Cystatin C and high-sensitivity Troponin T had the highest predictive value for cognitive decline.Univariate AUCs for biomarker/ageFigure legend

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases→French-language works237,207→