Atrial fibrillation with a structurally normal heart in pregnancy: An international survey on current practice
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
Background Little evidence exists for the optimal management of atrial fibrillation with a structurally normal heart in pregnancy. Methods A survey was sent to members of two associations to obtain input on optimal management of atrial fibrillation in pregnancy. The survey presented four cases with respect to (1) baseline investigations; (2) rate versus rhythm control; (3) chemical versus electrical cardioversion; and (4) anticoagulation. Results Sixty-one responders from 11 countries participated. High agreement was noted for baseline investigations. A quarter (25%) of participants chose elective cardioversion even with a reversible precipitant. Electrical cardioversion was preferred over chemical ( p < 0.05). Anticoagulation strategies were heterogeneous except in the presence of a left atrial appendage thrombus. Discussion This study revealed that there was little consensus in current practice in pregnancy beyond basic investigations. An adaptation of established guidelines to the pregnant population would require a meeting of Cardiologists with input from colleagues in Obstetric Medicine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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