MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cryoablation:

2004· review· en· W2025376582 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryoablationMedicineAblationCoronary sinusRadiofrequency ablationThrombusPulmonary veinCatheter ablationLesionRadiologyCatheterCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of cryoablation in the electrophysiology lab provides some distinct advantages not seen with conventional radiofrequency ablation. Ice mapping allows a functional assessment of a putative ablation site prior to the formation of a permanent lesion. This provides a distinct advantage adjacent to the AV node for para-hisian pathways and difficult cases of AVNRT. Cryoablation also produces minimal endothelial disruption and thrombus formation and causes no collagen shrinkage. This is likely advantageous when ablation is required within venous structures. There is also mounting experimental evidence that cryoablation is safe adjacent to the arterial system, especially within the middle cardiac vein or distal coronary sinus. As the technology evolves and further iterations of the catheter proceed, the role for this new but well-established technology is likely to grow.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.012
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.294 · 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