MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405809455 · doi:10.1101/2024.12.19.24319346

Biomarker panels for improved risk prediction and enhanced biological insights in patients with atrial fibrillation

2024· preprint· en· W4405809455 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Meyre, Stefanie Aeschbacher, Steffen Blum, Tobias Reichlin, Moa Lina Haller, Nicolas Rodondi, Andreas S. Müller, Alain Bernheim, Jürg H. Beer, Giorgio Moschovitis, André Ziegler, Bianca Wahrenberger, Elia Rigamonti, Giulio Conte, Philipp Krisai, Leo H. Bonati, Stefan Osswald, Michael Kühne, David Conen

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationBiomarkerInternal medicineCardiologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events, but the underlying biological mechanisms remain incompletely understood. Here we evaluated a panel of 12 circulating biomarkers representing diverse pathophysiological pathways in a cohort of 3,817 AF patients to assess their association with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We identified 5 biomarkers—d-dimer, growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), interleukin-6 (IL-6), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTropT)—that were independently associated with cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and systemic embolism, significantly enhancing predictive accuracy. Additionally, GDF-15, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-7 (IGFBP-7), NT-proBNP, and hsTropT were strong predictors of heart failure hospitalization, while GDF-15 and IL-6 were associated with major bleeding events. Incorporating IL-6, NT-proBNP, and hsTropT to the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score improved stroke risk prediction. Machine learning models incorporating these biomarkers demonstrated consistent improvements in risk stratification across all outcomes. Our results highlight the potential of integrating biomarkers related to myocardial injury, inflammation, oxidative stress, and coagulation into both conventional and machine learning-based models refine prognosis and guide clinical decision-making in AF patients.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→