MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996695942 · doi:10.1111/jce.14311

Ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: Challenges and solutions

2019· review· en· W2996695942 on OpenAlexaff
María Terricabras, Jonathan P. Piccini, Atul Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationAblationCardiologyInternal medicineCatheter ablation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catheter ablation is commonly used for treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is still the cornerstone for the procedure, however, outcomes are consistently lower compared to paroxysmal AF. It is hypothesized that it could be due to lack of durable lesions or the presence of non-PV targets that remain after PVI. Numerous advances in ablation catheter technologies and mapping systems may potentially achieve lower recurrence rates in the future. Ongoing research is required to discover the best technique for persistent AF ablation. The purpose of this review is to describe the new, developing technologies that may improve the outcome of this procedure in the persistent AF population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.009
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular ElectrophysiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207