MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: From Pathophysiology to Diagnosis and Advances in Management

2017· article· en· W2777436455 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Bastiaenen, Marc W. Deyell, Andrew D. Krahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiogenetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenetranceMedicineRisk stratificationCardiomyopathyPathophysiologyCardiologyDiseaseSudden cardiac deathInternal medicineArrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasiaIntensive care medicineHeart failureGeneticsPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) has advanced considerably over the past 30- 40 years. This is an inherited cardiomyopathy with complicated genetic inheritance and variable penetrance. Desmosomal dysfunction underlies most cases, and appreciating this pathophysiology has contributed to patient management, particularly with respect to exercise restriction to reduce disease progression. The diagnosis is made according to a series of Task Force Criteria, and subsequent management is guided by expert consensus in the absence of comparative data. ARVC is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD), particularly in young athletic individuals who unknowingly harbour the condition. Risk stratification is important to guide implantable cardioverter- defibrillator use and reduce SCD. Residual gaps in our understanding, particularly surrounding incomplete penetrance, the underlying pathophysiology and risk stratification, are being targeted by collaborative efforts, large registries, prospective studies and translational research.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiogeneticsSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207