MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differences in Echocardiographic Indices Between Patients With Partial and Advanced Interatrial Conduction Delay

2008· article· en· W2011107713 on OpenAlexaff
Vignendra Ariyarajah, Jaxon Fernandes, Sirin Apiyasawat, David H. Spodick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Heart Hospital Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCohortRisk stratificationAbnormality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial interatrial block (IAB) (P wave > or =110 ms) is a marker of left atrial abnormality. A similar association among patients with advanced IAB (biphasic P waves > or =110 ms in leads II, III, and aVF) is unknown. The authors screened 27 consecutive patients for advanced IAB with transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs). Of those, 19 who had repeat TTEs after 2 years formed our study cohort. The authors used 44 consecutive controls with partial IAB who had been similarly screened and had follow-up TTEs 2 years apart. TTE parameters were comparable at baseline between groups but were expectedly different on follow-up. When change (delta value) in these indices was compared, however, only left atrial dimension remained significant (advanced 0.07+/-0.06 mm vs partial IAB 0.03+/-0.06 mm; P=.03). Further study over a longer duration is warranted to ascertain if advanced IAB patients would benefit from follow-up noninvasive cardiac imaging for appropriate risk stratification.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Heart Hospital JournalSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207