MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024734285 · doi:10.1136/openhrt-2019-001207

Catheter ablation for the management of atrial fibrillation: current technical perspectives

2020· review· en· W3024734285 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn L. Hong, Jazlyn P. Borges, Benedict M. Glover

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Heart · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCatheter ablationAtrial fibrillationAblationManagement of atrial fibrillationSinus rhythmIntensive care medicineAdverse effectCardiologyPopulationCatheterInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice, with a prevalence that increases alongside the ageing population worldwide. The management of AF involves restoration of sinus rhythm through antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Yet, these medications have only modest efficacy in achieving long-term success, have not shown to result in a mortality benefit, are frequently not tolerated and have associated adverse side effects. Therefore, catheter ablation has become a valuable treatment approach for AF and even a viable first-line strategy in select cases. Traditionally, the combination of radiofrequency energy and a three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping system has been used to guide catheter ablation for AF. However, single-procedural efficacy and long-term outcomes still remain suboptimal for many patients, particularly those with persistent or long-standing AF. Recent advances in ablation technology and strategy, therefore, provide new procedural approaches for catheter-based treatment with the aim of overcoming current challenges in procedural duration and overall success. The aim of this paper was to provide an updated review of the current practices and techniques relating to ablation for AF and to compare the use of these strategies for paroxysmal and persistent AF.

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)0.002
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen HeartSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207