MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149099545 · doi:10.1093/europace/euu253

Seventh TRM Forum on Computer Simulation and Experimental Assessment of Cardiac Function: Creating the Basis for Tailored Therapies

2014· editorial· en· W2149099545 on OpenAlexaff
N. Virag, Vincent Jacquemet, L Kappenberger, Angelo Auricchio

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Medical physicsComputer modellingComputer scienceSurgerySoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer simulations have gained increasing importance for the understanding of cardiac arrhythmias and the development of new therapeutic solutions, overcoming some of the limitations encountered in clinical and experimental research. Progresses in computer models depend on continuous exchange of clinical and experimental data, both for model development and validation. Therefore, it is important that experts from these two fields communicate. Today, patient-specific models based on clinical imaging and electrophysiological data are becoming a reality. Such models could be used in the future for guiding individual clinical antiarrhythmic therapies. The challenge lies in how to translate these computer methods into clinically effective tools. To that end, since 1998 the Theo Rossi di Montelera (TRM) forum has brought together researchers with different expertise in computer modelling, experimental and clinical research. The seventh TRM forum was held in Lugano, Switzerland, on 1–3 December 2013, hosted by the Lausanne Heart group, the University of Lugano (USI) and the Cardiocentro Ticino (CCT). The theme was ‘Creating the Basis for Tailored Therapies’. The objective of the TRM forum is to facilitate the translation of basic science findings in computer modelling into the clinical field. The first day of the forum was therefore focused on ‘From computer to bedside: how predictive are computer models’ with the presentation of latest patient-specific computer models of the atria and ventricles and how they can be used to predict the effect of cardiac therapies. The second day followed the opposite pathway ‘From bedside …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.304
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207