MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Rhythm control and rate control did not differ for CV mortality in atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure

2008· article· en· W2051083542 on OpenAlexaffabout
John A. Cairns

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaVancouver Infectious Diseases Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineHeart RhythmManagement of atrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ACP Journal Club21 October 2008Rhythm control and rate control did not differ for CV mortality in atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failureJohn Cairns, MDJohn Cairns, MDGLD Healthcare Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (J.C.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-8-200810210-02008 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationRoy D, Talajic M, Nattel S, et al. Rhythm control versus rate control for atrial fibrillation and heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2667-77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18565859Clinical Impact RatingsEmergency Med: Cardiology: References1 de Denus S, Sanoski CA, Carlsson J, Opolski G, Spinler SA. Rate vs rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:258-62. [PMID: 15710787] Google Scholar2 Cain ME and Curtis AB. Rhythm control in atrial fibrillation—one setback after another. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2725-7. [PMID: 18565866] Google Scholar3 Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2006;114:e257-354. [PMID: 16908781] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAuthors: John Cairns, MDAffiliations: GLD Healthcare Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (J.C.)This article was published at Annals.org on 7 October 2008. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics 21 October 2008Volume 149, Issue 8Page: JC4-8KeywordsArrhythmiaAtrial fibrillationCardiac ablationCongestive heart failureDrugsHeart failureMorbidityMortalityPacemakersStroke ePublished: 21 October 2008 Issue Published: 21 October 2008 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2008 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.015
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal Medicine→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→