Diagnostic evaluation and arrhythmia mechanisms in survivors of unexplained cardiac arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying the cause of unexplained cardiac arrest is critical for appropriate management of both survivors and their family members. Aborted cardiac arrests whose cause remains unknown following investigation with a surface ECG, echocardiogram, and coronary angiogram are deemed unexplained. Many of these unexplained arrests are felt to be secondary to concealed forms of cardiac channelopathies and latent or subtle cardiomyopathies. This recognition has led to evaluating a diagnostic role for a series of additional investigations, including advanced imaging, genetic testing, and provocative forms of testing, including sodium channel blockade and treadmill testing. Despite evidence of an improved diagnostic yield through their systematic usage, clinical guidelines have yet to endorse a formal algorithm delineating investigations that must be performed before assigning a label of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, which has resulted in markedly variables thresholds for concluding this diagnosis. Debate remains regarding the need for an invasive electrophysiology study among these patients, though identification of arrhythmic culprits requiring intracardiac electrograms for diagnostic confirmation have suggested a potential role when an initial comprehensive evaluation is unrevealing. Although progress is being made, the sizeable portion of arrests that remain unexplained despite completion of a comprehensive evaluation highlights an ongoing need for further research and additional tools to help unravel the ongoing mysteries of these near fatal events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".