Temporo-spatial stability of complex fractionated atrial electrograms in two distinct and separate episodes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAEs) during atrial fibrillation (AF) has been used as adjunct to contemporary techniques or as an alternative. Temporo-spatial stability of CFAE has been demonstrated in single episodes of AF. We examined temporo-spatial reproducibility of CFAE in two distinct episodes of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The left atrium (LA) was mapped using the EnSite system during an episode of induced or spontaneous AF in patients with paroxysmal AF. Sinus rhythm was restored with electrical cardioversion and maintained for 10 min before re-induction of AF and repeat mapping. Maps were compared examining the mean cycle length at identical vertices, provided the anatomical point had data on both maps. Complex fractionated atrial electrograms were considered stable if the compared electrogram was within 50 ms--delta to 120 ms + delta. Eleven patients were studied; 10 were included [3 female, mean age 59.5 years (32-76)]. Complex fractionated atrial electrograms were observed in all regions of the LA. Complex fractionated atrial electrograms were evenly distributed throughout the LA but most reproducible at the roof and antero-lateral wall. Complex fractionated atrial electrograms were highly conserved between two episodes of AF with 76.1 +/- 11.8% of CFAE reproducible at delta of 20 ms. CONCLUSION: Complex fractionated atrial electrograms are reproducible at the same anatomic site in a separate episode of AF.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".