Pattern of initiation of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia and implications on tachycardia mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of sudden cardiac death, predominantly caused by ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, is high in patients with congestive heart failure. Implantable cardiac defibrillators have improved survival in this population but defibrillator shocks can lead to low quality of life and heart failure progression. The current management of recurrent ventricular tachycardia includes ablation and anti-arrhythmic drugs and both are associated with high recurrence rates. Better understanding the mechanism of ventricular tachycardia allowing individualization of treatment may improve outcomes. Re-entry is currently accepted as the mechanism of the majority of monomorphic ventricular tachycardias in patients with congestive heart failure, being responsible for more than 90% of the ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. On the other hand, some studies show a greater participation of focal arrhythmias in the genesis of ventricular tachycardia in this population. The pattern of initiation of ventricular tachycardia is divided into sudden, when the first beat of the tachycardia is morphologically similar to the rest of the tachycardia, and non-sudden, when its morphology is dissimilar. An association between the pattern of the initiation and the mechanism of ventricular tachycardia has been proposed. The pattern of initiation of ventricular tachycardia is a readily available from data stored in current generation implantable cardiac defibrillators. The association with tachycardia mechanism may allow individualization of the therapy, however evidence is lacking and further research is required.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".