More positive patient-reported outcomes in patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation: a comparative longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients newly (<6 months) diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) with those who have had a longer diagnosis (≥6 months) and to investigate whether or not these outcomes change over a 6-month period. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this longitudinal survey study, 129 patients with AF completed the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire, the Arrhythmia-Specific questionnaire in Tachycardia and Arrhythmia, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and after 6 months. At baseline, patients newly diagnosed with AF (n = 53), compared with patients with a previous diagnosis (n = 76), reported AF as more temporary (P = 0.003) and had a higher belief in personal and treatment control (P = 0.004 and P = 0.041, respectively). At a 6-month follow-up, patients newly diagnosed reported a lower symptom burden (P = 0.004), better health-related quality of life (HRQoL); (P = 0.015), and a higher personal control (P < 0.001) than patients previously diagnosed. Over time, in patients newly diagnosed, symptom burden and the anxiety symptom score decreased (P = 0.001 and P = 0.014, respectively) and HRQoL improved (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Patients newly diagnosed with AF reported more positive PROs both at baseline and at a 6-month follow-up than patients with a previous diagnosis of AF. Therefore, it is important to quickly capture patients newly diagnosed to support their belief in their own abilities. Such support may, alongside medical treatments, help patients manage the disease, which may lead to reduced symptom burden and better HRQoL over time.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".