Sex-differences in self-reported cardiorespiratory fitness, symptom severity, and quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often report low cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), a strong predictor of all-cause mortality, troubling symptoms, and poor quality (QoL). Scarce literature suggests there are sex-differences in cardiovascular outcomes between females and males with AF. Despite sex-based analysis being encouraged in research practices, it is often overlooked, and this research gap in those with AF merits examination. Purpose We aimed to assess the sex-differences in CRF, symptom severity, and disease-specific QoL in patients with AF. Methods This is an observational study in patients with AF within Canada. Estimated CRF (i.e., peak oxygen uptake [V̇O2peak], and metabolic equivalents [METs]) was measured using the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI). Symptom severity including AF frequency, AF duration, symptom severity, and total AF burden was assessed using the Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale (AFSS). Disease-specific QoL was examined using the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) which includes domains of symptoms, physical functioning, treatment concerns, and treatment satisfaction. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine sex-differences on the above-mentioned variables. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Data are presented as medians and 95% confidence intervals. Results This study included 210 (33%) females (66.0 [63.5-68.0] years) and 409 (66%) males (66.0 [64.0-67.0] years). Females reported lower levels of CRF as assessed by V̇O2peak (25.5 [23.3-27.2] vs. 30.0 [27.6-30.2] mL/kg/min, P < 0.001) and METs (7.2 [6.6-7.7] vs. 8.5 [7.9- 8.6], P < 0.001) compared to males. Females showed worse symptom severity (5.5 [5.2-6.0] vs. 5.0 [4.5-5.0] points, P < 0.001) and were more bothered by AF symptoms (7.0 [5.0-8.0] vs. 5.0 [4.0-5.0] points, P < 0.001) than males. Females also demonstrated poorer QoL than males (AFEQT total score: 80.6 [77.8-83.3] vs. 83.3 [80.6-86.1] points, P = 0.04). Conclusion Our findings show that females with AF reported clinically and statistically poorer CRF, and worse symptom severity and QoL when compared to males with AF. Our findings emphasize the need for sex-specific strategies to improve AF management, particularly in females.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".