AFGuide System to Support Personalized Management of Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia with clinical significance, is a serious public health problem. Yet a number of studies show that current AF management is suboptimal due to a knowledge gap between primary care physicians and evidence-based treatment recommendations. This gap is caused by a number of barriers such as a lack of knowledge about new therapies, challenges associated with multi-morbidity, or a lack of patient engagement in therapy planning. The decision support tools proposed to address these barriers handle individual barriers but none of them tackle them comprehensively. Responding to this challenge, we propose AFGuide -- a clinical decision support system to educate and support primary care physicians in developing evidence-based and optimal AF therapies that take into account multi-morbid conditions and patient preferences. AFGuide relies on artificial intelligence techniques (logical reasoning) and preference modeling techniques, and combines them with mobile computing technologies. In this paper we present the design of the system and discuss its proposed implementation and evaluation.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".