Role of genetic testing in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barahona‐Dussault C, Benito B, Campuzano O, Iglesias A, Leung TL, Robb L, Talajic M, Brugada R. Role of genetic testing in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia. In a cohort of patients with confirmed or suspected arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia (ARVC/D), genetic testing is useful in confirming the diagnosis, particularly in individuals who do not completely fulfil Task Force criteria for the disease, thereby also enabling the adoption of preventive measures in family members. Due to the high percentage of novel mutations that are expected to be identified in ARVC/D, the use of genetic screening technology based on the identification of known mutations seems to have very restricted value. Our results support that the presence of certain genetic variations could play a role in the final phenotype of patients with ARVC/D, where single and compound mutation carriers would have more symptomatic forms of the disease and the polymorphism P366L could be associated to a more benign phenotype.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".