Management of Gene-Positive Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia: Are the Long Term Outcomes on Therapy Really So Poor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
somewhat protective, 5 it is not currently recommended.If two patients are removed from the analysis (1 patient taking flecainide monotherapy and who was non-adherent), only one of the remaining 12 patients on flecainide (8.3%) had a fatal event.We agree with the concluding remarks by Kawata et indicating that left cardiac sympathectomy would be an appropriate adjunctive therapy for several of their patients, especially in the light of recent data from Italy. 6As such, the long-term prognosis of CPVT patients adherent to optimal treatment, including sympathetic denervation when indicated, is likely more favorable than suggested by Kawata et al.Further work is needed to determine long-term treatment outcomes in a larger, more heterogeneous population of CPVT patients including non-proband and genetically elusive cases.We believe that these factors are important to consider when counselling patients and evaluating therapy for CPVT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".