MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175654586 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000236

Premature ventricular contraction-induced cardiomyopathy

2015· review· en· W2175654586 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrea K.Y. Lee, Marc W. Deyell

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCardiomyopathyCardiologyEjection fractionInternal medicineQRS complexCatheter ablationAdverse effectAblationHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been a resurgent interest in frequent premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) led by the novel concept that they may be a potential cause of, or at least contribute to, cardiomyopathy. This review evaluates recent advances in our understanding of PVC-induced cardiomyopathy. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have focused on identifying the predictors of PVC-induced cardiomyopathy, with the most consistent predictors being PVC burden and PVC QRS duration. Multiple studies have investigated the effect of catheter ablation on PVC burden and resultant left ventricular function, with the efficacy of catheter ablation and the overall PVC response rates varying between 60 and 88%. After successful ablation, the rates of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction have varied between 47 and 100%. A recent study raises the question that perhaps even a lower PVC burden could result in PVC cardiomyopathy and adverse outcomes. SUMMARY: There is an increasing body of literature supporting a causal role of frequent PVCs in the development of left ventricular dysfunction. Effective therapy for PVCs exists; however, the optimal indications for therapy have yet to be determined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207