Identification, Characterisation and Outcomes of Pre-Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has prognostic implications. Using a machine learning algorithm (FIND-AF), we aimed to explore clinical events and the cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) characteristics of the pre-AF phenotype in HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of individuals aged ≥18 years with HFrEF without AF from the MATCH 1 and MATCH 2 studies (2018-2024) stratified by FIND-AF score. All received cardiac magnetic resonance using Cvi42 software for volumetric and T1/T2. The primary outcome was time to a composite of MACE inclusive of heart failure hospitalisation, myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included the association between CMR findings and FIND-AF score. Of 385 patients [mean age 61.7 (12.6) years, 39.0% women] with a median 2.5 years follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 58 (30.2%) patients in the high FIND-AF risk group and 23 (11.9%) in the low FIND-AF risk group (hazard ratio 3.25, 95% CI 2.00-5.28, P < 0.001). Higher FIND-AF score was associated with higher indexed left ventricular mass (β = 4.7, 95% CI 0.5-8.9), indexed left atrial volume (β = 5.9, 95% CI 2.2-9.6), higher indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume (β = 9.55, 95% CI 1.37-17.74, P = 0.022), native T1 signal (β = 18.0, 95% CI 7.0-29.1) and extracellular volume (β = 1.6, 95% CI 0.6-2.5). CONCLUSIONS: A pre-AF HFrEF subgroup with distinct CMR characteristics and poor prognosis may be identified, potentially guiding interventions to reduce clinical events.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".