Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial refers to ‘Idiopathic atrial fibrillation revisited in a large longitudinal clinical cohort’ by B. Weijs et al. , on page 184 The category of idiopathic, sometimes called ‘lone’, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a mythic creature. A sort of ‘leftover’ category of ‘AF with no apparent explanation or underlying aetilogy’, idiopathic, or lone AF is often a source of fascination and frequently mentioned. Nevertheless, it is not an entity with a clear definition that is widely acknowledged and accepted. There are several problems in trying to come up with a suitable definition, particularly over different epochs of time. Even within frequently used definitions there are variations, uncertainties, and inconsistencies. It remains uncertain whether defining idiopathic AF is in itself a useful exercise. It is noteworthy that the number of medical conditions, anthropometric measures, and genotypes associated with AF and our diagnostic capabilities have all increased dramatically over the last few decades. Thus, the task of defining idiopathic AF seems much like that of the mythic Sisyphus, who endlessly rolled a rock to the top of a hill in Hades only to have it return to the bottom, requiring him to start all over again. Just when we have a definition of idiopathic AF with which we are content, a new underlying aetiology or a better diagnostic test for known underlying aetiologies comes along that requires starting all over again. As a consequence, the proportion of cases of new-onset AF that truly have no explanation has become smaller and smaller (3% in the present report1) as time passes. One wonders whether this diagnosis will disappear altogether at some point in the future. Nonetheless, in this issue of the …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".