MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1882004419 · doi:10.1586/14779072.2015.1043891

Risk stratification for sudden death in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy

2015· review· en· W1882004419 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Cadrin‐Tourigny, Rafik Tadros, Mario Talajic, Léna Rivard, Sylvia Abadir, Paul Khairy

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasiaSudden cardiac deathRisk stratificationCardiologySudden deathInternal medicinePopulationCardiomyopathyImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorIntensive care medicineHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia (ARVC) is an uncommon but increasingly recognized inherited cardiomyopathy that is associated with malignant ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, particularly in young individuals. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is widely regarded as the only treatment modality with evidence to support improved survival in patients with ARVC and secondary prevention indications. In contrast, there is no universally accepted risk stratification scheme to guide ICD therapy for primary prevention against sudden cardiac death. Potential benefits must be weighed against the considerable risks of complications and inappropriate shocks in this young patient population. This article tackles the challenges of risk stratification for sudden cardiac death in ARVC and critically appraises available evidence for various proposed risk factors. The authors' over-arching objective is to provide the clinician with evidence-based guidance to inform decisions regarding the selection of appropriate candidates with ARVC for ICD therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207