MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1624357812 · doi:10.1155/2015/910267

Diagnosing Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Are Biomarkers the Solution to This Elusive Arrhythmia?

2015· review· en· W1624357812 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Philippa Howlett, Fiona Hatch, Vadim Alexeenko, Rita I. Jabr, E Leatham, Christopher Fry

Bibliographic record

VenueBioMed Research International · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineAntithromboticStroke (engine)Cardiac arrhythmiaParoxysmal atrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineDiseaseIntensive care medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the commonest sustained arrhythmia globally and results in significantly increased morbidity and mortality including a fivefold risk of stroke. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) constitutes approximately half of all AF cases and is thought to represent an early stage of the disease. This intermittent form of atrial arrhythmia can be a challenge to identify and as a result many affected individuals are not prescribed appropriate antithrombotic therapy and hence are at risk of stroke and thromboembolism. Despite these adverse outcomes there have been relatively few diagnostic advances in the field since the introduction of the Holter monitor in 1949. This review aims to establish the available evidence for electrophysiological, molecular, and morphological biomarkers to improve the detection of PAF with reference to the underlying mechanisms for the condition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.373
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioMed Research InternationalSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207