MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

β-Radiation for the Creation of Linear Lesions in the Canine Atrium

2004· article· en· W2136340305 on OpenAlexaff
Peter G. Guerra, Mario Talajic, Bernard Thibault, Marc Dubuc, Denis Roy, Laurent Macle, Tack Ki Leung, André Arsenault, François Harel, Jean‐Pierre Grégoire, Raoul Bonan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationThrombusAtrial flutterCardiologyInternal medicineRadiologyNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Creating linear lesions is important for the treatment of arrhythmias such as atrial flutter and fibrillation. Making these lesions with standard radiofrequency catheters can be difficult and may result in charring and thrombosis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate beta-radiation as a novel energy source for creating linear myocardial lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eight dogs with intact conduction across the cavotricuspid isthmus were studied. The isthmus was irradiated (25 to 50 Gy) with strontium/yttrium-90 delivered via a deflectable 7F catheter (Novoste Corporation). There were no immediate effects, but bidirectional conduction block developed during follow-up studies in 7 of 8 dogs. The dog without conduction block received 25 Gy. After the animals were euthanized, histology revealed transmural, linear areas of fibrosis without any thrombus. CONCLUSIONS: Beta-radiation can safely and effectively create linear lesions that are contiguous and nonthrombogenic. This energy source may become an interesting adjunct to radiofrequency for the treatment of atrial flutter and fibrillation.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207