Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcoidosis is a multisystem inflammatory disease of unknown cause. Due to its protean and nonspecific clinical manifestations, the optimal diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, as well as prognosis, are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on sarcoid heart disease and present an approach to its diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. METHODS: MEDLINE and PreMEDLINE searches of all available English-language articles and case reports from 1966 to 2002 were performed. Search terms included 'sarcoidosis' and 'heart diseases', with a variety of medical subject subheadings. RESULTS: Clinical disease often includes heart block, dilated cardiomyopathy and ventricular arrhythmias. Patients with sarcoidosis are at increased risk of sudden death. Because the yield of endomyocardial biopsy for definitive diagnosis is low, the diagnosis is often made with a combination of electrocardiography, Holter monitoring, echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging and, most recently, magnetic resonance imaging. For symptomatic patients, medical therapy may include a trial of steroids and immunosuppressive therapy. Monoclonal antibodies against tumour necrosis factor may be employed in refractory cases. Heart block warrants a permanent pacemaker, while ventricular tachyarrhythmias are typically amiodarone-unresponsive, requiring implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are no large, randomized trial data on cardiac sarcoidosis, the literature suggests that making the diagnosis is clinically important. Unlike the situation in isolated pulmonary disease, cardiac involvement implies a poor prognosis. The diagnosis often requires high clinical suspicion with a combination of radiological and nuclear imaging. Therapy with steroids may halt progression of left ventricular dysfunction, while arrhythmias warrant device therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 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".