The Risk of Atrial Fibrillation and Previous Ischemic Stroke in Cognitive Decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Our study investigated the inverse relationship between cognitive decline (CD) and the presence of documented atrial fibrillation (AFib), ischemic stroke, heart failure, lower extremity peripheral artery disease, and diabetes mellitus. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study between December 2016 and November 2019. A total of 469 patients were enrolled who underwent cognitive evaluation with three cognitive tests (Montreal Cognitive Assessment—MOCA, Mini-Mental State Examination—MMSE, and General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition—GPCOG). We used the standard cut-off values, and the optimal thresholds were obtained from the receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: The standard cut-off level of the MOCA (<26 points) was associated with the presence of AFib (OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.11–3.01) and the optimal cut-off level with <23 points with ischemic stroke (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.47–4.74; p = 0.0011). The optimal cut-off value of the MMSE (<28 points) was associated with the presence of ischemic stroke (OR: 3.07, 95% CI: 1.56–6.07; p = 0.0012), AFib (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.05–2.60; p = 0.0287), and peripheral artery disease (OR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.38–5.36; p = 0.0039). GPCOG < 8 points were associated with ischemic stroke (OR: 2.18, 95% CI: 1.14–4.14; p = 0.0176) and heart failure (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.01–2.21; p = 0.0430). Conclusions: Our research highlighted the broader utility of cognitive assessment. The MOCA and MMSE scores proved to be associated with documented AFib. Higher cognitive test results than the standard threshold for CD of the MMSE, GPCOG, and lower MOCA scores represented risk factors for the presence of previous ischemic stroke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".