MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086358040 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e3282fa7142

Atrial fibrillation: evidence for genetically determined disease

2008· review· en· W2086358040 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Andalib, Ramón Brugada, Stanley Nattel

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteBell (Canada)McGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineDiseasePopulationFibrillationPathogenesisBioinformaticsCardiologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Atrial fibrillation is traditionally regarded as a sporadic, nongenetic disorder. Nevertheless, recent growing evidence points to an important heritable basis for atrial fibrillation, with significant genetic determinants. This paper reviews recent progress in understanding the role of genetic contributors to the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation and its familial susceptibility. RECENT FINDINGS: Population-based studies have demonstrated a significant heritable component in atrial fibrillation, with specific contributors including single-gene mutations and single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Variants in both ion-channel and nonion-channel genes have been identified as potential atrial fibrillation-risk determinants. In addition, studies have pointed to interesting combined roles of genetic and environmental factors in atrial fibrillation pathogenesis, providing insights into gene-environment interactions. Clinical studies suggest that individual genetic profiles may determine the therapeutic response of atrial fibrillation. SUMMARY: Rapidly evolving work indicates that there are important genetic determinants of atrial fibrillation, and suggests that understanding these determinants will help us both to appreciate better the underlying pathophysiology and to provide new approaches in diagnosis, prevention and treatment of this common cardiac condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.428
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207