MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415018719 · doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2025.106515

Monitoring time-to-detection of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients with transient new-onset atrial fibrillation detected initially during hospitalization for noncardiac surgery or medical illness

2025· article· en· W4415018719 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Internal Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyMcMaster UniversityHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedical diagnosisTransient (computer programming)Medical illnessFibrillationSeverity of illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third-of patients with transient new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during hospitalization for noncardiac surgery or medical illness will have recurrent AF within 1 year when assessed using two 14-day ECG monitors. The proportion of patients that would be diagnosed with recurrent AF with less monitoring is unknown. METHODS: We used data from a prospective cohort of participants with transient new-onset AF while hospitalized for noncardiac surgery or medical illness, who wore one or two 14-day ECG monitors. We calculated the proportion of patients that would be diagnosed with recurrent AF with different durations of ECG monitoring and the median time-to-detection of recurrent AF lasting ≥30 s. RESULTS: -VASc 3) wore an ECG monitor a median of 1.5 months following hospital discharge; 83 (59.7 %) wore a second monitor at median of 5.8 months after the first monitor. Recurrent AF was detected in 5.0 % of participants by 1 day, 5.8 % by 2 days, 6.5 % by 3 days, 12.2 % by 7 days, 21.6 % by 14 days and in 28.8 % by the end of the second 14-day monitor. Median monitoring time to recurrent AF was 5.3 (IQR 1.4-9.7) days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with transient new-onset AF during hospitalization for another reason, the rate of detection of recurrent AF increased with longer monitoring durations. Approximately 80 % of diagnoses were made after 2 days of monitoring; the likelihood of capturing recurrent AF was 4 times higher with 14 days of monitoring compared to 2 days.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.272 · 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