A Historical Perspective on the Role of Functional Lines of Block in the Re‐entrant Circuit of Ventricular Tachycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ablation strategy for ventricular tachycardia (VT) rapidly evolved from an entrainment mapping approach for identification of the critical isthmus of the re-entrant circuit during monomorphic VT, toward a substrate-based approach aiming to ablate surrogate markers of the circuit during sinus rhythm in hemodynamically nontolerated and polymorphic VT. The latter approach implies an assumption that the circuits responsible for the arrhythmia are anatomical or fixed, and present during sinus rhythm. Accordingly, the lines of block delimiting the channels of the circuits are often considered fixed, although there is evidence that they are functional or more frequently a combination of fixed and functional. The electroanatomical substrate-based approach to VT ablation performed during sinus rhythm is increasingly adopted in clinical practice and often described as scar homogenization, scar dechanneling, or core isolation. However, whether the surrogate markers of the VT circuit during sinus rhythm match the circuit during arrhythmias remains to be fully demonstrated. The myocardial scar is a heterogeneous electrophysiological milieu with complex arrhythmogenic mechanisms that potentially coexist simultaneously. Moreover, the scar consists of different areas of diverse refractoriness and conduction. It can be misleading to limit the arrhythmogenic perspective of the myocardial scar to fixed or anatomical barriers held responsible for the re-entry circuit. Greater understanding of the role of functional lines of block in VT and the validity of the surrogate targets being ablated is necessary to further improve the technique and outcome of VT ablation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".