Selective Complex Fractionated Atrial Electrograms Targeting for Atrial Fibrillation Study (SELECT AF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compared generalized complex fractionated atrial electrograms (CFAE) ablation versus a selective CFAE ablation strategy targeting areas of continuous electric activity. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects with symptomatic, persistent/high-burden paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) were enrolled at 6 centers (n=86) and randomized to 1 of 2 arms. For group I, all CFAE regions with an interval confidence level >7 were ablated followed by pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). For group II, only CFAE sites with continuous electric activity were ablated followed by PVI. For PVI, all 4 PV antra were isolated with confirmed entrance block. Subjects were followed for 1 year with a visit, ECG, and 48-hour Holter every 3 months. Symptoms were confirmed by loop recording. The primary end point was freedom from arrhythmia >30 seconds at 1 year. For both group I and II, CFAE ablation prolonged AF cycle length (25±33 versus 23±33 ms; P=0.78) and resulted in similar rates of AF termination (37% versus 28%; P=0.42). Radiofrequency duration during CFAE ablation was significantly less in group II (23±20 versus 38±20 minutes; P=0.002). At 1-year follow-up, freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia recurrence was significantly higher in group I versus group II after 1 procedure (50% versus 28%; P=0.03). There were also significantly fewer repeat procedures in group I (13% versus 36%; P=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Continuous electric activity ablation+PVI result in a similar incidence of acute AF termination with significantly less radiofrequency time. However, incidence of repeat procedures and long-term recurrence of AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia are significantly lower using generalized CFAE ablation+PVI. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00926783.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".