MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy

2009· review· en· W2142481272 on OpenAlexaff
Robert M. Hamilton

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCardiomyopathyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) has evolved from postmortem pathology at to a diagnosable clinical condition, and holds promise for definitive genetic diagnosis. Its prevalence is between 1/1,000 and 1/5,000, with 10% of deaths occurring before age 19 and 50% before age 35. When analyzed against age-specific norms, the electrocardiography (ECG) and signal-averaged ECG (SAECG) have moderate sensitivity for ARVC. Endomyocardial biopsy in young individuals with ARVC demonstrates fibrosis more frequently than fatty infiltration, and is convincing for the diagnosis in approximately 1/3 (often in patients who would not otherwise be diagnosed), but has a recognized complication rate of 2%. Newer technologies of magnetic resonance imaging and voltage mapping hold promise but require further assessment in young individuals suspected to have ARVC. Genetic diagnosis of one of several desmosomal mutations is positive in an approximately 50% of suspected patients, and may provide clues to the pathophysiology of the disease. Serial studies of myocardial function, ambulatory electrocardiography, and SAECG parameters may be useful in risk stratification of identified patients, although their applicability to genetically identified asymptomatic individuals has not been studied.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207