Therapeutic Considerations in Applying Rate Control Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The therapeutic strategy of heart rate control for atrial fibrillation (AF) is undergoing a renaissance since several recent randomized trials demonstrated clear advantages over the rhythm control for many patients. Heart rate control for AF is hampered, however, by a dearth of information relating target heart rates to physiological measures or clinical outcomes. In this review, the rather sparse rationale behind the data elements for heart rate control - resting heart rate, activity heart rate, and regularity of the heart rate, is outlined. Beat-to-beat stroke volume is probably a key variable for calibrating heart rate targets. Presently it seems reasonable to propose targets for resting and activity heart rates but not for regularity. It also seems plausible but remains unproven that there should be a range (upper and lower) of heart rate targets rather than a simple upper limit. Nevertheless, it remains to be demonstrated through randomized clinical trials how to apply various heart rate control targets in patients with AF and whether complexity offers any advantage over simplicity.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".