Is catheter ablation associated with preservation of cognitive function? An analysis from the SAGE-AF observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To examine the associations between catheter ablation treatment (CA) vs. medical management and cognitive impairment among older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods Ambulatory patients who had AF, were ≥65-years-old, and were eligible to receive oral anticoagulation could be enrolled into the SAGE (Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements)-AF study from internal medicine and cardiology clinics in Massachusetts and Georgia between 2016 and 2018. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) tool at baseline, 1-, and 2 years. Cognitive impairment was defined as a MoCA score ≤ 23. Multivariate-adjusted logistic regression of longitudinal repeated measures was used to examine associations between treatment with CA vs. medical management and cognitive impairment. Results 887 participants were included in this analysis. On average, participants were 75.2 ± 6.7 years old, 48.6% women, and 87.4% white non-Hispanic. 193 (21.8%) participants received a CA before enrollment. Participants who had previously undergone CA were significantly less likely to be cognitively impaired during the 2-year study period ( aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.97 ) than those medically managed (i.e., rate and/or rhythm control), even after adjusting with propensity score for CA. At the 2-year follow-up a significantly greater number of individuals in the non-CA group were cognitively impaired (MoCA ≤ 23) compared to the CA-group (311 [44.8%] vs. 58 [30.1%], p = 0.0002 ). Conclusion In this 2-year longitudinal prospective cohort study participants who underwent CA for AF before enrollment were less likely to have cognitive impairment than those who had not undergone CA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".