A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials Comparing Radiofrequency Ablation with Antiarrhythmic Medications in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent arrhythmia seen in clinical practice. Until recently, antiarrhythmic medications have been the only commonly employed treatment for maintaining sinus rhythm. However, antiarrhythmic medications have a modest long-term efficacy and the potential for serious side effects. Radiofrequency (RF) ablation is now emerging as a viable alternative to antiarrhythmic medications in maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with AF. Several randomized trials comparing RF ablation with antiarrhythmic medications have now been published. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of published randomized trials comparing RF ablation with antiarrhythmic medications in the treatment of AF. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed and two authors independently abstracted the data from trials. A statistical analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (BIOSTAT, Englewood, NJ, USA). RESULTS: A total of six trials were identified. Overall, RF ablation reduced the risk of AF recurrence by 65% at 1 year compared with antiarrhythmic medications. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with AF, RF ablation reduced the risk of AF recurrence at 1 year by 65% compared with antiarrhythmic medications.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it