MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035661067 · doi:10.1002/joa3.12338

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)/Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)/Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) expert consensus on risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias: use the right tool for the right outcome, in the right population

2020· review· en· W3035661067 on OpenAlexaff
Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Yenn‐Jiang Lin, Márcio Jansen de Oliveira Figueiredo, Alireza Sepehri Shamloo, Alberto Alfie, Serge Bovéda, Nikolaos Dagres, Darío Di Toro, Lee L. Eckhardt, Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, Carina Hardy, Takanori Ikeda, Aparna Jaswal, Elizabeth S. Kaufman, Andrew D. Krahn, Kengo Kusano, Valentina Kutyifa, H. Lim, Gregory Y H Lip, Santiago Nava-Townsend, Hui‐Nam Pak, Gerardo Rodríguez-Diez, William H. Sauer, Anil Saxena, Jesper Hastrup Svendsen, Diego Vanegas, Marmar Vaseghi, Arthur A.M. Wilde, T. Jared Bunch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Arrhythmia · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNovo Nordisk Fonden
KeywordsMedicineHeart RhythmRisk assessmentPopulationIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ATRIAL FIBRILLATION 4.1 Risk assessment for stroke/transient ischaemic attack/ cognitive decline 4.2 Risk assessment for stroke/transient ischaemic attack status post-left atrial appendage occlusion/ligation 4.3 Risk for heart failure incidence and progression 4.4 Risk for death in atrial fibrillation patients 4.5 Risk of adverse outcomes in patients treated with catheter ablation 4

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations102
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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