Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is a rapidly evolving field. It has been adopted at many institutions worldwide. This review compares the efficacy and cost of catheter ablation and medical therapy in atrial fibrillation patients. RECENT FINDINGS: There is emerging evidence for clinical superiority of catheter ablation over medical therapy for restoring and maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation patients. Early analyses of costs related to catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation suggest that medical therapy and catheter ablation become cost-equivalent at about 5 years of follow-up. A recent cost-effectiveness study concluded that catheter ablation is a cost-effective alternative to medical care in younger and older patients at low and moderate risk of stroke, assuming that restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm with ablation would have some protective effect with respect to embolic events. SUMMARY: Catheter ablation is a potentially cost-effective strategy in select patients with atrial fibrillation. Long-term randomized studies that compare it to conventional care and focus on outcomes of morbidity and mortality are necessary prior to widespread application of this technique.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".