Innovative approaches to atrial fibrillation prediction: should polygenic scores and machine learning be implemented in clinical practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) prediction and screening are of important clinical interest because of the potential to prevent serious adverse events. Devices capable of detecting short episodes of arrhythmia are now widely available. Although it has recently been suggested that some high-risk patients with AF detected on implantable devices may benefit from anticoagulation, long-term management remains challenging in lower-risk patients and in those with AF detected on monitors or wearable devices as the development of clinically meaningful arrhythmia burden in this group remains unknown. Identification and prediction of clinically relevant AF is therefore of unprecedented importance to the cardiologic community. Family history and underlying genetic markers are important risk factors for AF. Recent studies suggest a good predictive ability of polygenic risk scores, with a possible additive value to clinical AF prediction scores. Artificial intelligence, enabled by the exponentially increasing computing power and digital data sets, has gained traction in the past decade and is of increasing interest in AF prediction using a single or multiple lead sinus rhythm electrocardiogram. Integrating these novel approaches could help predict AF substrate severity, thereby potentially improving the effectiveness of AF screening and personalizing the management of patients presenting with conditions such as embolic stroke of undetermined source or subclinical AF. This review presents current evidence surrounding deep learning and polygenic risk scores in the prediction of incident AF and provides a futuristic outlook on possible ways of implementing these modalities into clinical practice, while considering current limitations and required areas of improvement.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".