MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hybrid ablation for atrial fibrillation: the importance of achieving transmurality and lesion validation

2019· review· en· W2938790571 on OpenAlexaff
Syed M. Ali Hassan, Kathryn L. Hong, Fabrizio Rosati, Benedict M. Glover, Damian Redfearn, Andrés Enríquez, Gianluigi Bisleri

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Cardioangiologica · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCatheter ablationAblationAtrial fibrillationLesionCardiac AblationIntensive care medicineCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Therapeutic ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved significantly with progressive advancements in technology and surgical instruments. With the goal of minimizing surgical morbidity while maintaining the benefits of the traditional Cox-Maze procedure, surgical ablation for AF has undergone significant modifications. Most recently, an increased understanding of substrate complexity, predominantly in patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF, has led to the development of a synergistic hybrid approach. The hybrid approach attempts to combine the benefits of epicardial ablation and catheter-based endocardial ablation in order to overcome the shortcomings associated with each technique alone. Importantly, the aid of electrophysiological intervention has provided new opportunities for evaluating lesion transmurality both acutely and in a staged approach. Therefore, the hybrid procedure may provide the optimal approach for the surgical treatment of AF, with the potential to tailor procedural treatment according to the patient's specific needs. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of current surgical techniques, including the implications of this novel hybrid approach in the management of AF and improving procedural outcomes. Recent findings from published studies are highlighted with a primary focus on the importance of lesion transmurality and validation in a hybrid setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva CardioangiologicaSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207