MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4146563: Physician follow up and cardiac testing after a first diagnosis with secondary vs. primary atrial fibrillation in-hospital

2024· article· en· W4404382291 on OpenAlexaffabout
Basma Mohammed, Jiming Fang, Paul Dorian, Douglas S. Lee, Andrew C.T. Ha, Cynthia A. Jackevicius, Dennis T. Ko, Peter Austin, Sheldon Singh, Husam Abdel‐Qadir

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Secondary atrial fibrillation (AF) is triggered by acute illness and associated with adverse outcomes. Timely follow-up is recommended by the American Heart Association statement on acute AF. Hypotheses: Patients with secondary AF receive less follow-up and cardiac testing than those primarily hospitalized for AF (primary AF). Follow-up is lower for secondary AF patients hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses. Methods: Population-based cohort study using linked administrative datasets of patients aged ≥66 yrs discharged alive after a new diagnosis of AF while hospitalized in Ontario between Apr 2013 - Mar 2019. Patients were classified as secondary or primary AF using a validated approach based on discharge diagnosis type and followed for 1yr. Outcomes included physician visits (family physicians [FP], internists, cardiologists), and cardiac testing (electrocardiograms [ECG], echocardiograms, ambulatory ECG monitoring). The cumulative incidence function was used to quantify the incidence of outcomes. Cause-specific hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) associated with hospitalization type in secondary AF patients. Regression analyses accounted for competing risks. Results: We studied 13,011 secondary AF (35.2% cardiac surgery, 9.6% cardiac medical, 17% noncardiac surgery, 38.1% noncardiac medical) and 11,065 primary AF patients. Secondary AF was associated with lower age, male sex, less heart failure, and greater prevalence of other comorbidities. Less than 50% of secondary AF patients had visits to internists, cardiologists, echocardiograms or ambulatory ECG monitoring (see Figure). The incidence of all outcomes was significantly lower for secondary than primary AF. Among secondary AF patients, specialist follow-up and cardiac testing rates were lowest after noncardiac diagnoses (see Table). Conclusion: Patients with secondary AF have less specialist follow-up and cardiac testing than primary AF, especially if hospitalized for noncardiac diagnoses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→