Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the ages there has been little else as impressive to both the patient and physician as abnormalities and aberrancy in the heartbeat. It was through careful observation and characterization of physiology that the tactile measurement of the pulse translated and evolved in to the vast field of cardiology we know today. For thousands of years the only window physicians had into the hearts of their patients was through palpation of a pulse. The ancient Egyptians, Chinese and Greeks are credited with measurement and characterization of peripheral pulses and their association with illness. The work of Claudius Galen (129-199) furthered the association of pulse to cardiac function. Galen’s work set the stage for William Harvey’s (1578-1657) first description of the circulatory system and thereafter the function of the heart. However, it was not until the advent of electrocardiography that modern, efficient studies of cardiac rhythm began. The work of August Desir Waller (1856-1922) and Willem Einthoven (1860-1927) revolutionized the study of arrhythmia with the advent of the electrocardiogram (ECG). This instrument transformed the diagnosis of heart disease and catalyzed the creation of cardiology as a subspecialty. It was through the use of the ECG that cardiac rhythm disorders were first characterized. James Mackenzie and Arthur Cushny first recognized atrial fibrillation and the work of Drs. Wolf, Parkinson and White theorized the neuro-cardiac function of the heart. Further study led to the discovery of the Purkinje system and the mechanics of cardiac electrical conduction. Medicine has thus used many approaches in the treatment of arrhythmias, employing pharmacology, electricity and surgery, with an ever-evolving spectrum of treatment. It was through observation, innovation and determination that diseases of the heart are understood and treated today. Hanon S, Shapiro M, Schweitzer P. A troubled beginning: Evolving concepts of an old arrhythmia. J. Electrocardiol. 2005 (July); 38(3):213-7. Fye,W. Tracing atrial fibrillation - 100 years. N Engl J Med. 2006 (Oct); 5;355(14):1412-4. Lüderitz B. History of the disorders of cardiac rhythm. 3rd Ed. Armonk, NY: Futura Pub. Co., 2002.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.066 |
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".