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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Endurance exercise, despite a plethora of proven health benefits, is increasingly recognized as a potential cause of lone atrial fibrillation. Moderate exercise reduces all-cause mortality and protects against developing atrial fibrillation. However, more intense exercise regimes confer modest incremental health benefits, induce cardiac remodelling and negate some of the cardiovascular benefits of exercise. The implications of endurance exercise and athletic heart are becoming increasingly relevant as the popularity of endurance exercise has increased 20-fold within a generation. RECENT FINDINGS: An apparent dose-response relationship exists between endurance exercise and left atrial dilatation. Repeated strenuous endurance exercise overloads atria, resulting in stretch-induced 'microtears', inflammation and endocardial scarring. Although these findings are observational in humans, similar mechanisms have recently been confirmed in animal models suggesting causation. SUMMARY: Currently, it is not known whether a ceiling for endurance exercise exists, and, if so, what factors determine the threshold of harm. Although preliminary research is promising, much work remains if we are to understand the mechanisms underpinning atrial fibrillation in athletes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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