MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159050692 · doi:10.1111/pace.12456

Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: At Long Last, Guidelines for Arrhythmia Management

2014· editorial· en· W2159050692 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter P. Karpawich

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSection (typography)CitationPediatricsInternal medicineFamily medicineCardiologyLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning with the first successful surgical closure of a patent ductus arteriosus in 1938, to open heart repair of septal defects in 1955 and into the current era, children born with potentially fatal congenital heart defects are now surviving and attaining adulthood in numbers not previously envisioned.The concept of "long term" survival, originally meaning 10 years postrepair, has been superseded by survival beyond 20 and even 40 years.At the current time, population estimates indicate that there are now nearly 3 million adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) in the United States, Canada, and Europe; and that number is growing.Since a "repaired" congenital heart does not imply "normal," most of these patients will experience some complications, requiring lifelong medical care (Fig. 1).Prominent among these complications are arrhythmias that contribute to impaired quality of life, morbidity, and mortality.And although expert consensus guidelines dealing with various aspects of arrhythmia identification and patient management have been published since the 1980s, dealing primarily with ischemic heart disease, none fully apply to this growing ACHD population.At the recent 35th Scientific Sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) presented the first-ever expert consensus arrhythmia management guidelines that focus specifically on the ACHD patient, taking into consideration specific cardiac anatomies, surgical repairs, and their sequelae, including heart failure. 1 The 22member, multidisciplinary and international writing committee included representatives from, and the publication was endorsed by, the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, Heart Rhythm Society, European Heart Rhythm Association, Canadian Heart Rhythm Conflict of Interest: None.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0100.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.008

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.339 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207