MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2932641469 · doi:10.1002/9781119152637.ch97

The Evolution of Cardiac Mapping

2019· other· en· W2932641469 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Shenasa, Atul Verma, Kumaraswamy Nanthakumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkMcGill UniversitySouthlake Regional Health CenterUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular tachycardiaCardiac electrophysiologyCardiac magnetic resonanceSubstrate (aquarium)Magnetic resonance imagingMedicineComputer scienceElectrophysiologyCardiologyInternal medicineRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiac mapping has always been an integral part of basic and clinical cardiac electrophysiology. Cardiac mapping has come a long way from the days of Sir Thomas Lewis, using a single point-by-point mapping technique, to today's unprecedented multimodality mapping and imaging. This chapter focuses on electrogram-based substrate mapping with some innovative techniques such as unipolar mapping. Substrate mapping was initially used in the electrophysiology laboratory in cases of non-inducible arrhythmias, hemodynamically fast ventricular tachycardia (VT), or unmappable arrhythmias. The future of cardiac mapping lies in the domain of substrate-based mapping methodology that does not involve the induction of arrhythmias. Imaging-based substrate mapping is an anatomical approach with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without physiological data. Omnipolar mapping technology (OT) uses novel catheters, signal processing, and display enhancements to resolve electrogram signals along meaningful anatomical and physiological directions.

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)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→