Cardiorespiratory fitness, atrial fibrillation and stroke: a review of the evidence in 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The body of evidence linking cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) levels with the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke - two interconnected cardiovascular conditions - is not entirely consistent. Furthermore, specific CRF thresholds beyond which the risk of AF or stroke might not decrease are not well defined. AREAS COVERED: This review summarizes research evidence on the role of CRF in the development of AF and stroke including dose-response relationships in general population participants, explores the biological mechanisms through which CRF may exert its effects, assesses the potential implications for clinical care and population health, identifies gaps in the current evidence, and suggest directions for future research. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception until July 2024 to identify observational longitudinal and interventional studies as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to these study designs. EXPERT OPINION: In the general population, increasing levels of CRF, achieved through consistent physical activity, can significantly reduce the likelihood of developing AF and stroke. The findings also advocate for a tailored approach to exercise prescriptions, acknowledging the plateau in benefits for AF risk beyond certain CRF levels, while advocating for higher intensity or prolonged activity to further reduce stroke risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".