Cognitive function disparities among atrial fibrillation patients with varying comorbidities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is common in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients and may develop earlier in those with multiple cardiovascular comorbidities, potentially impairing self-management and treatment adherence. This study aimed to characterize the prevalence and profile of MCI in AF patients, examine its associations with cardiovascular comorbidities, and assess how these comorbidities influence specific cognitive domains. METHODS This cross-sectional study analyzed data from AF patients who underwent cognitive assessment between 2017 and 2021. Cognitive status was categorized as MCI or non-MCI based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Associations between comorbidities and MCI were assessed by logistic regression, and cognitive domains were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS Of 4136 AF patients (mean age: 64.7 ± 9.4 years, 64.7% male), 33.5% of patients had MCI. Among the AF patients, 31.2% of patients had coronary artery disease, 20.1% of patients had heart failure, and 18.1% of patients had hypertension. 88.7% of patients had left atrial enlargement, and 11.0% of patients had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Independent factors associated with higher MCI prevalence included older age (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03–1.05, P < 0.001), lower education level (OR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.31–1.73, P < 0.001), hypertension (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07–1.52, P = 0.001), heart failure (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.04–1.48, P = 0.020), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.04–1.98, P = 0.028). A higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.22–1.33, P < 0.001; ≥ 2 points vs. < 2 points), and greater atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease burden (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.02–2.08, P = 0.040; 2 types vs. 0 type) were linked to increased MCI risk. These above factors influenced various cognitive domains. CONCLUSIONS MCI is common in AF and closely associated with cardiovascular multimorbidity. Patients with multiple comorbidities are at higher risk, highlighting the importance of routine cognitive assessment to support self-management and integrated care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".