Quality of life among patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have significantly lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared to the general population and patients with other heart diseases. The research emphasis on the influence of AF symptoms on HRQoL overshadows the role of individual characteristics. To address this gap, this study’s purpose was to test an incremental predictive model for AF-related HRQoL following an adapted HRQoL conceptual model that incorporates both symptoms and individual characteristics. Methods Patients attending an AF specialty clinic were invited to complete an online survey. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine whether individual characteristics (overall mental health, perceived stress, sex, age, AF knowledge, household and recreational physical activity) incremented prediction of HRQoL and AF treatment satisfaction beyond AF symptom recency and overall health. Results Of 196 participants (mean age 65.3 years), 63% were male and 90% were Caucasian. Most reported ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ overall and mental health, had high overall AF knowledge scores, had low perceived stress scores, and had high household and recreation physical activity. The mean overall AF Effect On Quality-Of-Life Questionnaire (AFEQT) and AF treatment satisfaction scores were 70.62 and 73.84, respectively. Recency of AF symptoms and overall health accounted for 29.6% of the variance in overall HRQoL and 20.2% of the variance in AF treatment satisfaction. Individual characteristics explained an additional 13.6% of the variance in overall HRQoL and 7.6% of the variance in AF treatment satisfaction. Perceived stress and household physical activity were the largest contributors to overall HRQoL, whereas age and AF knowledge made significant contributions to AF treatment satisfaction. Conclusions Along with AF symptoms and overall health, individual characteristics are important predictors of HRQoL and AF treatment satisfaction in AF patients. In particular, perceived stress and household physical activity could further be targeted as potential areas to improve HRQoL.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".