MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088658593 · doi:10.14797/mdcj-10-1-18

A Contemporary Review on the Genetic Basis of Atrial Fibrillation

2014· review· en· W2088658593 on OpenAlexaff
Jason D. Roberts, Michael H. Gollob

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationPharmacogeneticsCardiac arrhythmiaIntensive care medicineCardiologyManagement of atrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, and affected individuals suffer from increased rates of heart failure, stroke, and death. Despite the enormous clinical burden that it exerts on patients and health care systems, contemporary treatment strategies have only modest efficacy that likely stems from our limited understanding of its underlying pathophysiology. Epidemiological studies have provided unequivocal evidence that the arrhythmia has a substantial heritable component. Subsequent investigations into the genetics underlying atrial fibrillation have suggested that there is considerable interindividual variability in the pathophysiology characterizing the arrhythmia. This heterogeneity may partly account for the poor treatment efficacy of current therapies. Subdividing atrial fibrillation into mechanistic subtypes on the basis of genotype illustrates the heterogeneous nature of the arrhythmia and may ultimately help guide treatment strategies. A pharmacogenetic approach to the management of atrial fibrillation may lead to dramatic improvements in treatment efficacy and improved patient outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodist DeBakey Cardiovascular JournalSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207