MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286742378 · doi:10.1113/jp270535

Predicting the risk of sudden cardiac death

2015· review· en· W2286742378 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Lerma, Leon Glass

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk stratificationVentricular fibrillationReentryCardiologyMedicineSudden cardiac deathVentricular tachycardiaInternal medicineSinus rhythmNormal Sinus RhythmFibrillationAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is the result of a change of cardiac activity from normal (typically sinus) rhythm to a rhythm that does not pump adequate blood to the brain. The most common rhythms leading to SCD are ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). These result from an accelerated ventricular pacemaker or ventricular reentrant waves. Despite significant efforts to develop accurate predictors for the risk of SCD, current methods for risk stratification still need to be improved. In this article we briefly review current approaches to risk stratification. Then we discuss the mathematical basis for dynamical transitions (called bifurcations) that may lead to VT and VF. One mechanism for transition to VT or VF involves a perturbation by a premature ventricular complex (PVC) during sinus rhythm. We describe the main mechanisms of PVCs (reentry, independent pacemakers and abnormal depolarizations). An emerging approach to risk stratification for SCD involves the development of individualized dynamical models of a patient based on measured anatomy and physiology. Careful analysis and modelling of dynamics of ventricular arrhythmia on an individual basis will be essential in order to improve risk stratification for SCD and to lay a foundation for personalized (precision) medicine in cardiology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.327
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 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
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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207