MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888955480 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy565.1356

1356Value of interatrial block for the prediction of silent ischemic brain lesions

2018· article· en· W2888955480 on OpenAlexaff
Göksel Çinier, Ahmet İlker Tekkeşin, Turgay Celık, Özlem Mercan, İbrahi̇m Hali̇l Tanboğa, Burak Günay, Ceyhan Türkkan, Mert İlker Hayıroğlu, Bryce Alexander, Adrián Baranchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Previous studies demonstrated that interatrial block (IAB) is associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) in different clinical scenarios. The aim of our study was to determine whether IAB could predict silent ischemic brain lesions (sIBL), detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: The study group consisted in123 patients (36% male) who had presented to the neurology outpatient clinic and had brain MRI performed within 7 days. Patients were asymptomatic in terms of stroke-like symptoms. A 12-lead surface ECG was obtained from each patient. IAB was defined as P-wave duration >120 ms with (advanced IAB) or without (partial IAB) biphasic morphology in the inferior leads. Results: sIBL was detected in 61 patients. Patients with sIBL were older (P<0.001), have more left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (P=0.02) and higher CHA2DS2-VASc score compared to those without (P<0.001). P-wave duration was significantly longer in patients with sIBL (124 [110.5–129] msvs 107 [102–116.3] ms) (P<0.001). IAB was diagnosed in 36 patients (59%) with sIBL (+) and in 11 patients (18%) with sIBL (−); p<0.001. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified age [Odds ratio (OR), 1.061; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.012 - 1.113; p=0.014], CHA2DS2-VASc score (OR, 1.758; 95% CI, 1.045 - 2.956; p=0.034), LVH (OR, 3.062; 95% CI, 1.161 - 8.076; p=0.024) and presence of IAB (including both partial and advanced) (OR, 5.959; 95% CI, 2.269 - 15.653; p<0.001) as independent predictors of sIBL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207