Wave similarity of human ventricular fibrillation from bipolar electrograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this report was to review existing techniques for assessment of directionality in fibrillation and to describe the concept of wave similarity analysis in human VF. METHODS: We applied a technique called wave similarity analysis to bipolar electrograms to study directionality during various rhythms (sinus rhythm, ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation) in humans. This technique uses the barycentre to determine the activation time and a similarity index is calculated using a technique described previously for AF studies. RESULTS: We show here that using the wave similarity concept it is possible to recognize myocardial regions that are activated from multiple directions and differentiate those areas from regions that are activated by wave fronts in similar direction or at the exact mirror angle in ventricular fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Wave similarity analysis provides a tool for assessing directional organization in human VF. This analysis of directional organization may have implications for the study of mechanisms of VF in the clinical arena.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".