Pulmonary vein isolation was better than antiarrhythmic drugs for symptomatic atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wazni OM, Marrouche NF, Martin DO, et al . Radiofrequency ablation vs antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. JAMA 2005;293:2634–40. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with radiofrequency ablation more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs as first line treatment? Clinical impact ratings Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Cardiology ★★★★★★★ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: {concealed}*.† ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: {unblinded}*.† ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 1 year. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: 44 clinical centres in Italy and 26 clinical centres in Germany. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 70 patients who were 18–75 years of age and had experienced monthly symptomatic AF ⩾3 months. Exclusion criteria included previous history of AF or AF ablation, previous treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs, and contraindication to long term anticoagulation. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Intervention: 33 patients were allocated to PVI with radiofrequency ablation (all 4 pulmonary veins were isolated) and were given ⩾3 months of warfarin, beginning on the evening of PVI (target international normalised ratio [INR] of 2–3). If patients … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DWazni%26rft.auinit1%253DO.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D293%26rft.issue%253D21%26rft.spage%253D2634%26rft.epage%253D2640%26rft.atitle%253DRadiofrequency%2BAblation%2Bvs%2BAntiarrhythmic%2BDrugs%2Bas%2BFirst-line%2BTreatment%2Bof%2BSymptomatic%2BAtrial%2BFibrillation%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.293.21.2634%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15928285%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.293.21.2634&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15928285&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F1%2F16.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000229443400022&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".