Prognostic value of pulmonary vein size in prediction of atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relationship between pulmonary vein (PV) anatomy and successful catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is poorly understood METHODS: First-pass contrast enhanced PV magnetic resonance angiography was performed in 71 consecutive patients prior to PV isolation. PV diameter and cross-sectional area (CSA) were measured prior to PV isolation. Any symptomatic or asymptomatic AF >10s was considered a recurrence. Early recurrence was defined as recurrent AF ≤30 days after PV isolation, while late recurrence of AF was defined as recurrent AF >30 days after. RESULTS: At 1 year, 57% had any recurrence of AF while 41% had late recurrence of AF. Study subjects with one or more PV diameter in the top 10(th) percentile had trend toward more early recurrent AF (HR 1.99, p = 0.053). Study subjects with one or more PV CSA in the top 10th percentile had more late recurrent AF (HR 2.25, p = 0.039) and a trend toward more early recurrent AF (HR 1.94, p = 0.064). With multivariate analysis, PV size was not associated with early recurrent AF, but late recurrent AF was associated with one or more large PV, increased left atrial size, and non-paroxysmal AF. Study subjects with all three of these risk factors had a 100% rate of late recurrent AF at 1 year, while those with none had a 7% rate of late recurrent AF. CONCLUSIONS: Larger PV size is independently associated with more late recurrent AF after PV isolation. Determination of PV size prior to PV isolation may predict procedural success.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".