PREVALENCE, BURDEN, AND MANIFESTATION OF ATRIAL FIBRILLATION: A LARGE-SCALE ANALYSIS OF CARDIAC PATCH MONITORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequently paroxysmal and asymptomatic, making its detection and burden quantification challenging. The distribution of AF burden across clinically monitored populations remains poorly characterised. We sought to describe the distribution of AF burden and its variation by monitoring indication, symptomatology, arrhythmia characteristics and geography. METHODS: This study analysed cardiac patch monitor reports collected between May 2017 and July 2023. Analyses were stratified by monitoring indication, AF burden grouping and geography. AF burden subgroups were defined based on the burden detected during recording, and divided into four subgroups: (1) no AF (AF burden=0%); (2) low burden AF (>0 to ≤10%); (3) moderate burden AF (>10% to <100%); and (4) continuous AF (100%). RESULTS: Across 142 346 monitoring reports, AF was detected in 15 678 cases (11.17%), with a median AF burden of 100% (IQR 4.67-100.00). When stratified by monitoring indication, AF was detected in 28.2% of monitors indicated due to suspected or history of AF, 4.5% for stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), 6.5% for syncope/pre-syncope and 4.9% for palpitations. In the stroke/TIA monitoring population, AF detection was time-dependent, with 58.8% of cases identified within 24 hours, increasing to 88.0% identified at 7 days. Among all patients with AF detected, patients with continuous AF (100% AF burden) exhibited lower heart rates and symptom burden compared with those with low (≤10%) and moderate (10% to <100%) AF burden. AF detection was higher in the UK than Canada (12.2% vs 10.9%), as was median burden among detected cases (100.0 vs 55.0%), despite shorter prescribed monitoring durations in the UK (median 48.00 hours (IQR 24.00-168.00) vs 168.00 hours (IQR 168.00-336.00)). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing clinically indicated patch monitoring, AF burden varied by monitoring indication, symptomatology and geography, identifying potentially distinct AF subgroups. Characterising AF burden can inform the development and evaluation of AF monitoring and treatment strategies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".