Consensus statement on the diagnosis and management of arrhythmias associated with cardiac sarcoidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a consensus document on the diagnosis and management of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) was published.1 This consensus statement was written by experts representing the Heart Rhythm Society, European Heart Rhythm Association, World Association for Sarcoidosis and other Granulomatous Disorders (WASOG), American College of Chest Physicians, American Heart Association the American College of Cardiology and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society. The statement was a worldwide effort to address the clinical questions faced by physicians looking after patients with CS in the absence of conclusive clinical data. Although we consider that the recommendations will help in the care of these patients, it is perhaps only a foundation point for comprehending this poorly understood disease. Developing guidelines for uncommon conditions requires adapting the usual methodology for preparing these documents. Most obviously, there are limited randomised and/or blinded studies in the field. Therefore, all recommendations are level of evidence C (ie, expert opinions). The key recommendations are reviewed below. Sarcoidosis is a disease of unknown aetiology with non-caseating granulomas being the key pathological finding. The lungs are the most commonly affected organ but the disease may also variably occur in the heart, skin, liver, spleen, eye, peripheral lymph nodes and other organs. Recent data suggests that the disease is due to an unidentified antigenic trigger provoking an abnormal immunological response in genetically susceptible individuals. Sarcoidosis occurs worldwide, with the highest rates reported in African–American and Northern Europeans, particularly in women. The overall disease prevalence varies between about 4.7 and 64 in 100 000. Clinically manifest cardiac involvement is reported in approximately 5% of patients with sarcoidosis. Features of CS are dependent on the activity, extent and location of the disease. The three main manifestations are (1) conduction abnormalities, (2) ventricular arrhythmias including unheralded sudden cardiac death and (3) heart failure. Also, it is …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".