Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgery aims to eliminate atrial fibrillation (AF) through direct modification of the arrhythmogenic substratum. The Maze procedure, developed two decades ago, has proven to be clearly effective in restoring sinus rhythm in AF patients with or without associated organic cardiac disorders. Indications for surgery may be tailored to the clinical situation involved. In patients with continuous AF associated with structural heart disease (eg, valvular, congenital or coronary artery disease), the performance of a concomitant AF ablation procedure proven to add minimal morbidity to the operation may be highly beneficial to patient outcome. It is likely, although not entirely proven, that the restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm after mitral valve surgery promotes survival by preventing tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and stroke. Novel strategies for AF surgery involve the use of alternate energy sources to create the lines of block in the atria and the simplification of the lesion pattern compared with the earlier Cox-Maze procedure. Published clinical data support the contention that left atrial ablation techniques performed concomitantly with valvular and/or coronary artery bypass surgery are likely to result in a 70% to 90% cure rate of AF in patients with preoperatively documented AF. Despite the lack of evidence for long-term outcome benefit, intraoperative pulmonary vein ablation, feasible with minimal morbidity, clearly appears to be an improvement over simply ignoring AF in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Left atrial appendectomy appears warranted in patients with chronic persistent AF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".