Cognitive impairment and treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation in older adults: The <scp>SAGE‐AF</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is strongly associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). Rate and rhythm control are the two treatment strategies for AF and the effect of treatment strategy on risk of cognitive decline and frailty is not well established. We sought to determine how treatment strategy affects geriatric-centered outcomes. METHODS: The Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Elements-AF (SAGE-AF) was a prospective, observational, cohort study. Older adults with AF were prospectively enrolled between 2016 and 2018 and followed longitudinally for 2 years. In a non-randomized fashion, participants were grouped by rate or rhythm control treatment strategy based on clinical treatment at enrollment. Baseline characteristics were compared. Longitudinal binary mixed models were used to compare treatment strategy with respect to change in cognitive function and frailty status. Cognitive function and frailty status were assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Battery and Fried frailty phenotype tools. RESULTS: 972 participants (mean age = 75, SD = 6.8; 49% female, 87% non-Hispanic white) completed baseline examination and 2-year follow-up. 408 (42%) were treated with rate control and 564 (58%) with rhythm control. The patient characteristics of the two groups were different at baseline. Participants in the rate control group were older, more likely to have persistent AF, prior stroke, be treated with warfarin and have baseline cognitive impairment. After adjusting for baseline differences, participants treated with rate control were 1.5 times more likely to be cognitively impaired over 2 years (adjusted OR: 1.47, 95% CI:1.12, 1.98) and had a greater decline in cognitive function (adjusted estimate: -0.59 (0.23), p < 0.01) in comparison to rhythm control. Frailty did not vary between the treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Among those who had 2-year follow-up in non-randomized observational cohort, the decision to rate control AF in older adults was associated with increased odds of decline in cognitive function but not frailty.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".