Effectiveness of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillationThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial refers to ‘Catheter ablation treatment in patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation: a prospective, multi-centre, randomized controlled study (Catheter Ablation for the Cure of Atrial Fibrillation Study)’† by G. Stabile et al., on page 216 Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has become increasingly popular in multiple centres worldwide as more studies have reported favourable success rates in preventing AF recurrences using various ablation techniques.1 Different strategies for ablating AF range from physiological approaches aimed at electrical segmental pulmonary vein (PV) isolation2,3 to anatomical circumferential PV ablation with or without the addition of linear ablation lines in the posterior left atrium and in the mitral isthmus.4,5 Recent randomized studies comparing these approaches have yielded conflicting results concerning the relative merits of segmental PV isolation vs. circumferential PV ablation.5,6 Despite numerous studies reporting results of different ablation techniques and more recent studies randomizing different techniques, surprisingly little data have been published comparing ablative therapy with medical therapy for AF. Catheter ablation of AF has been associated with major complications in 6% of patients;1 these include complications of vascular access, cardiac tamponade, stroke, PV stenosis, and rare but potentially fatal atrio-oesophageal fistulae. Given the risk of complications associated with AF ablation, randomized studies comparing ablation with medical therapy are necessary to guide physicians and patients in selecting optimal management strategies under different circumstances.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".