2118Optimal left ventricular access route for scar-related VT ablation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: Insights from contact force sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Contact force (CF) sensing technology has become a widely used addition to catheter ablation procedures. CF has been shown to be directly related to lesion depth and volume particularly in the atria. CF is greatly affected by operator experience and the stability of the catheter. Neither the optimal CF required to achieve effective lesions in the ventricle, nor the impact of left ventricular access route on CF has been fully clarified. Patient and methods: Consecutive patients (n=24) with ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent ablation for scar related ventricular tachycardia were included. All ablations were performed using irrigated CF-sensing catheters (Biosense Webster, Irvine CA). Effective lesion formation was defined as electrical unexcitability post-ablation at sites which were electrically excitable prior to ablation (unipolar pacing at 10mA, 2ms pulse width). We explored the impact of left ventricular access route (retrograde aortic or transseptal) on the CF achieved in various segments of the left ventricle. Scar zone was defined as bipolar signal amplitude <0.5 mV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".