MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772093759 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/jex312

Applications of cardiac computed tomography in electrophysiology intervention

2017· review· en· W2772093759 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Liddy, Una Buckley, Hong Kuan Kok, B Loo, Benedict M. Glover, Gurmohan Dhillon, Orla Buckley

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Imaging · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationPulmonary veinCardiac electrophysiologyCardiologyThrombusRadiologyInternal medicineCardiac imagingPercutaneousStenosisCardiac resynchronization therapyOcclusionHeart failureElectrophysiologyEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac electrophysiology is an evolving specialty that has seen rapid advances in recent years. Concurrently, there has been much progress in the field of cardiac imaging. Electrophysiologists are increasingly requesting cross-sectional imaging in advance of many procedures. Pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion are now an established treatment options for atrial fibrillation. In patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation, applications of computed tomography (CT) include evaluating the left atrial and pulmonary venous anatomy, excluding LAA thrombus and assessing for pulmonary vein stenosis. In those undergoing LAA occlusion, CT may be of value in assessing the size, position, and morphology of the LAA as well as for determining correct positioning of the device and evaluating for peri-device leak. Implantable cardiac devices are now commonly used in the management of cardiac failure and cardiac arrhythmias. Applications of CT prior to device implantation include detecting myocardial scar, evaluating for mechanical dyssynchrony as well as visualising the coronary venous anatomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular ImagingSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207