A Practical Criterion for the Rapid Detection of Single‐Loop and Double‐Loop Reentry Tachycardias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Entrainment criteria for the diagnosis of reentrant atrial tachycardia can be difficult to apply and cannot detect double-loop reentry. We sought to develop and clinically test a new criterion for the diagnosis of single- and double-loop reentry. METHODS AND RESULTS: (1) Proposed criterion: after sequential overdrive pacing at 2 different locations and assessing the first ensuing beats of tachycardia, the difference in activation time recorded between 2 appropriate stationary positions changes by 1 or 2 tachycardia cycle lengths; a change of 2 tachycardia cycle lengths usually indicates double-loop reentry rather than only a single-loop. (2) Clinical testing: multiple overdrive pacing maneuvers were undertaken and analyzed in 5 patients with common flutter (single-loop reentry). In total, 23 pairs of overdrive pacing maneuvers were performed using electrodes in the coronary sinus and a distribution of positions in the right atrium. In 22/23 pairs of maneuvers, the change in Activation Difference was within 2.6 ± 12.4 milliseconds of the tachycardia cycle length, confirming single loop reentry. For double-loop reentry, the literature was reviewed and 3 cases of double-loop reentry were identified with sufficient data. In all of these cases, double-loop reentry was detected and also the zone containing the common isthmus was identified. CONCLUSION: The proposed criterion can diagnose single- and double-loop reentry atrial tachycardia using intracardiac recordings from any pair of well separated positions. The criterion does not require precise electrode placement or extensive activation mapping.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".