Ablación o drogas en la fibrilación auricular paroxística
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Resumen Durante años las drogas antiarrítmicas (DAA) han constituido el tratamiento fundacional para los pacientes con fibrilación auricular paroxística (FAP) en los cuales se desea mantener el ritmo sinusal. Debido a las limitaciones en su eficacia, principalmente a largo plazo, sumado a la gran proporción de pacientes que discontinúan la terapia por efectos adversos, nuevas terapias no farmacológicas han sido desarrolladas con el fin de lograr un adecuado control del ritmo. En la última década la ablación por catéter se ha mostrado como la terapia más efectiva y posiblemente la más segura en aquellos pacientes con falla del tratamiento antiarrítmico. Estudios randomizados y metaanálisis recientemente publicados indican que la ablación podría ser considerada como primera línea de terapia en pacientes seleccionados con FAP en quienes se busca controlar el ritmo. Por lo tanto, en este artículo revisaremos la evidencia actual que avala el uso de DAA o ablación en la FAP."
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".