MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955658462 · doi:10.14740/cr885

Clinical Significance of Skin Autofluorescence in Elderly Patients With Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

2019· article· en· W2955658462 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Takashi Hitsumoto

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutofluorescenceMedicineAtrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineRisk factorClinical significanceTroponinMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical studies have demonstrated the importance of skin autofluorescence as a cardiovascular risk factor. However, data regarding the relationship between skin autofluorescence and atrial fibrillation are limited. The aim of this study was to clarify the clinical significance of skin autofluorescence in elderly patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: This cross-sectional study enrolled 112 elderly patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation who were treated medically (46 men and 66 women; mean age, 81 ± 9 years). The association between skin autofluorescence and various clinical parameters was examined. RESULTS: scores (≥ 2) or elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T levels (> 0.014ng/mL) were 2.6 arbitrary units (AU) and 2.7 AU, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicated that skin autofluorescence may be a prognostic factor in elderly patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. The risk value of skin autofluorescence was considered as 2.6 AU or 2.7 AU.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207