Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart Rhythm Case Reports is entering its sixth year in publication. As an official journal of the Heart Rhythm Society, this open access journal continues to endorse the aim of publishing high-quality case reports that improve the care of patients with heart rhythm disorders by advancing research, education, and procedural skill and efficacy. When the journal was conceived, it was anticipated to be a bimonthly publication with approximately 8–10 articles per issue. It quickly became apparent to the editorial team that the volume of high-priority manuscripts would require a monthly distribution with approximately 10 articles per issue. As I write this State of the Journal commentary, we have received 1664 submissions to date. This volume of submissions is a testament to the dedicated people that treat patients with heart rhythm disorders and their desire to uncover that which is rare, uncover that which is common but presenting in a rare form, use technologies that confirm and at times question our current understanding of arrhythmia mechanisms, and provide novel approaches and treatments to improve our field. The success of this journal remains critically dependent on a dedicated and diverse editorial team and board and numerous reviewers who provide excellent and timely reviews. These reviews remain the lifeblood of a peer-reviewed journal, and each publication is a testament to those who volunteer their time to promote their field. We are committed to accepting cases that are of value and high priority for our readership. Our acceptance rate was 41% in 2018 and it will likely be similar once figures for 2019 are tallied. Approximately 60% of the submissions come from the United States, with Japan (23%), China (6%), Canada (5%), and Italy (5%) being the other countries with the highest submission rates. Trackable downloads can be recorded throughout the world, which highlights the value of an open access journal that can disseminate information broadly. In this regard, social media remains a tool used by the journal to share cases with different readerships and expand the reach of each publication. The Heart Rhythm Case Reports Twitter account has grown and now has approximately 4900 followers. A corresponding Facebook page is used to reach a different audience and to allow dynamic conversations that may require longer commentary than allowed by Twitter. In 2019, we began a new invited series focusing specifically on cases of very high educational value. This new monthly journal feature is titled “A Case for Education.” Topics have included approaches to pediatric syncope with exercise, by Malloy-Walton and Tisma-Dupanovic,1Malloy-Walton L. Tisma-Dupanovic S. The approach to pediatric syncope with exercise.HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2019; 5: 485-488Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar and performing transseptal puncture safely in cases of atrial septum aneurysm, by Stöckigt and colleagues.2Stöckigt F. Eberhardt F. Horlitz M. Complication prevention in ablation procedures: How to perform transseptal puncture safely in case of atrial septum aneurysm.HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2019; 5: 529-533Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (3) Google Scholar Each issue will continue to feature one of these educational cases. These cases also include online quizzes that can be used for study and article content review. As the library of questions grows, we hope to use it dynamically on the website to allow self-study of electrophysiology in general and for specific topics. I remain very grateful for the opportunity to serve all of you as Editor-in-Chief of Heart Rhythm Case Reports. It has been a pleasure of mine to work with an amazing editorial staff, Section Editors, the Editorial Board, and our many reviewers. It is also a great pleasure to work for the Heart Rhythm Society in this capacity and help it reach its goals through this published sharing of knowledge. I remain hopeful that our product meets your expectations and, if not, I welcome your suggestions for improvement and look forward to another year of learning from you and growth in our collective understanding of heart rhythm disorders.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".