Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review will examine the prognostic importance of atrial fibrillation and heart failure, explore the different therapeutic options for treating atrial fibrillation and present the results of the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure (AF-CHF) trial. RECENT FINDINGS: The Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure trial was a randomized trial involving patients with both atrial fibrillation and heart failure. The trial was designed to compare the maintenance of sinus rhythm with the control of ventricular rate in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure and a history of atrial fibrillation. There was no significant difference in the rate of death from cardiovascular causes in the rhythm-control group as compared with the rate-control strategy. In addition, there was no significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes including death from any cause, worsening heart failure or stroke. The rate-control strategy eliminated the need for repeated cardioversion and reduced rates of hospitalization. SUMMARY: The results of the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure trial indicate that a routine strategy of rhythm control does not reduce rate of death and suggest that rate control should be considered a primary approach for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".