MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900254414 · doi:10.4022/jafib.2100

Remote Monitoring of Atrial High Rate Episodes in Pacemaker Patients. The Rapid Study Design

2018· review· en· W2900254414 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atrial Fibrillation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Subclinical infectionGuidelineStroke riskInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineIschemic strokePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

That clinically-documented atrial fibrillation (AF) in association with a variety of elevated clinical/laboratory risk markers is associated with an increased risk of stroke is well known -- regardless of whether the AF is paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent. Moreover, data is accumulating to suggest that the absolute rate of stroke should be expectedly higher with a greater burden of AF and greater degree of comorbid contributors. Relatedly, stroke prevention with chronic oral anticoagulation (OAC) is recommended for AF patients with appropriate risk markers by all major medical, cardiologic, and surgical guideline-writing organizations. However, at least two major clinical concerns about the above AF-stroke statements remain. First, if AF is related to stroke, why then is there not a consistent temporal relationship between a stroke and AF? Second, is there importance to and what should we do about device-detected AF (so-called subclinical AF [SCAF]) in the absence of clinically-recognized AF? This paper is designed to enhance the understanding of these issues and reduce the consternation of physicians who care for patients with AF with respect to them.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atrial FibrillationSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207