Early and comprehensive management of atrial fibrillation: Proceedings from the 2nd AFNET/EHRA consensus conference on atrial fibrillation entitled 'research perspectives in atrial fibrillation'
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is already an endemic disease, and its prevalence is soaring, due to both an increasing incidence of the arrhythmia and an age-related increase in its prevalence. Indeed, 1–2% of the population suffer from AF at present, and the number of affected individuals is expected to double or triple within the next two to three decades both in Europe and in the USA.1–4 Although epidemiological data for other parts of the world are less robust, a similar increase in AF in the community can be assumed in other countries. Atrial fibrillation causes marked morbidity and mortality on a population basis. Epidemiological observations suggest that AF is still associated with a doubling of mortality, even after adjustment for confounders.2,5 This observation from the last millennium appears to continue into current randomized trials in AF patients. Also, AF is the single most important risk factor for ischaemic stroke. Furthermore, strokes associated with AF result more often in death or permanent disability than strokes that occur as a result of other aetiologies.6–9 The presence of AF is also associated with a marked reduction in everyday functioning and quality of life.10–13 The harm associated with AF and the perceived detrimental effects of the arrhythmia on general health contrast with the outcome of six trials that compared a ‘rate control’ therapy strategy, aiming at accepting AF and controlling the ventricular rate, with an antiarrrhythmic drug-based ‘rhythm control’ therapy strategy, aiming at maintenance of the ‘natural’ sinus rhythm. Apart from a slight improvement in 6 min walk test in a small trial14 and post hoc analyses,15 the outcome of patients randomized to rhythm control therapy was not better than patients randomized to rate control therapy,14,16–20 …
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it