MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1605584281 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v59i4.257

Ibutilide Pretreatment to Facilitate Cardioversion of Refractory Atrial Fibrillation in a Patient with Morbid Obesity

2006· article· en· W1605584281 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. H. Friesen, John Ducas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIbutilideCardioversionMedicineAtrial fibrillationAmiodaroneCardiologyDefibrillationInternal medicineAnesthesiaShock (circulatory)Sinus rhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Electrical cardioversion is an effective means for converting atrial fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm, with conversion rates ranging from 70% to 90%.1 There are a number of treatment alternatives for patients with atrial fibrillation that is refractory to conventional monophasic electrical cardioversion, including external biphasic shock, pretreatment with antiarrhythmic medication, high-energy monophasic shocks, and internal cardioversion. External biphasic shock is becoming the standard of care in the electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.2 However, even with this modality, atrial fibrillation is resistant to cardioversion in a small proportion of patients. In this setting, use of antiarrhythmic (class III) medication to facilitate cardioversion may be an attractive approach.1 This report describes the use of ibutilide for atrial fibrillation refractory to cardioversion with both amiodarone and biphasic shock. This case is also important because of the role that obesity played in the patient’s recurrent/resistant atrial fibrillation and in the pharmacokinetics of antiarrhythmic agents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→