Heart rate variability and stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke remains one of the most serious complications in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients and has been linked to disturbances of the autonomic nervous system. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that impaired cardiac autonomic function might be associated with an enhanced stroke risk in AF patients. METHODS: A total of 1922 AF patients who were in either sinus rhythm (SR group; n = 1121) or AF (AF group; n = 801) on a 5-minute resting electrocardiographic (ECG) recording were enrolled in the study. Heart rate variability triangular index (HRVI), standard deviation of normal-to-normal intervals, root mean square root of successive differences of normal-to-normal intervals, mean heart rate, 5-minute total power, and power in the high-frequency, low-frequency, and very-low-frequency ranges were calculated. Cox regression models were constructed to examine the association of heart rate variability (HRV) parameters with the composite endpoint of stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS: Mean age was 71 ± 8 years in the SR group and 75 ± 8 years in the AF group. Thirty-seven patients in the SR group (3.4%) and 60 patients in the AF group (8.0%) experienced a stroke or systemic embolism during follow-up of 5 years. In patients with SR, HRVI <15 was the strongest HRV parameter to be associated with stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio 3.04; 95% confidence interval 1.3-7.0; P = .009) after adjustment for multiple confounders. In the AF group, no HRV parameter was found to be associated with the composite endpoint. CONCLUSION: HRVI measured during SR on a single 5-minute ECG recording is independently associated with stroke or systemic embolism in AF patients. HRV analysis in SR may help to improve risk stratification in AF patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".