MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122977376 · doi:10.1097/crd.0b013e31822f0b3e

Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia

2011· review· en· W2122977376 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco Femenía, Adrián Baranchuk, Carlos A. Morillo

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology in Review · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalpitationsEtiologySinus (botany)Sinus tachycardiaTachycardiaInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineSick sinus syndromePharmacotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) is an uncommon form of arrhythmia characterized by an increased heart rate that is out of proportion to a normal physiologic demand. The etiology of IST remains ill-defined and controversial. Clinical presentation of IST is highly variable, from isolated to sustained palpitations, and can cause deterioration in one's quality of life. IST is usually a diagnosis of exclusion and it is important to rule out other causes of sinus tachycardia before reaching a final diagnosis. Evaluation of cardiac autonomic reflex function is essential to support the diagnosis of IST. The treatment of IST aims to target the multiple mechanisms involved in this disease, and multidisciplinary management, including cardiac rehabilitation, pharmacotherapy, and occasionally radiofrequency modification of the sinus node, should be considered. The prognosis is usually benign, although regular follow-up is required to optimize therapy and prevent the onset of tachycardiomyopathy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology in ReviewSame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207