Entrainment for Distinguishing Atypical Atrioventricular Node Reentrant Tachycardia From Atrioventricular Reentrant Tachycardia Over Septal Accessory Pathways With Long-RP Tachycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The response to right ventricular (RV) entrainment is useful to distinguish atypical AV node reentrant tachycardia from AV reentrant tachycardia using a septal accessory pathway. Whether entrainment can differentiate between AV node reentrant tachycardia and AV reentrant tachycardia in patients with long-RP tachycardia has not been systematically validated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with concealed septal accessory pathways who had an electrophysiology study between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2010, were included (age, 38 ± 17 years; men, 17). Entrainment was performed from the RV apex pacing at cycle length 20 to 40 ms shorter than tachycardia cycle length (TCL). The mean TCL was 390 ± 80 ms, the mean AH interval during tachycardia was 151 ± 57 ms, and the mean ventriculoatrial (VA) time was 182 ± 103 ms. Twelve patients had typical accessory pathways (VA/TCL <40%), and 12 had slowly conducting accessory pathways (VA/TCL ≥ 40%). In all patients with typical accessory pathways, the postpacing interval minus the TCL (PPI-TCL) was <115 ms and the difference in the VA interval during pacing and tachycardia (StimA-VA) was <85 ms. On the other hand, in 6 of the 12 patients in the slowly conducting group, the PPI-TCL was >115 ms, and the StimA-VA was > 85 ms. CONCLUSIONS: Slowly conducting accessory pathways frequently yield RV entrainment criteria traditionally attributable to AV node reentry. Distinguishing AV node reentry from AV reentry in patients with long-RP tachycardia requires other criteria.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".