MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035961209 · doi:10.1161/circresaha.120.316341

Population-Based Screening for Atrial Fibrillation

2020· review· en· W3035961209 on OpenAlexaff
Shaan Khurshid, Jeff S. Healey, William F. McIntyre, Steven A. Lubitz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Intensive care medicinePopulationAsymptomaticRandomized controlled trialCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common and morbid arrhythmia. Stroke is a major hazard of AF and may be preventable with oral anticoagulation. Yet since AF is often asymptomatic, many individuals with AF may be unaware and do not receive treatment that could prevent a stroke. Screening for AF has gained substantial attention in recent years as several studies have demonstrated that screening is feasible. Advances in technology have enabled a variety of approaches to facilitate screening for AF using both medical-prescribed devices as well as consumer electronic devices capable of detecting AF. Yet controversy about the utility of AF screening remains owing to concerns about potential harms resulting from screening in the absence of randomized data demonstrating effectiveness of screening on outcomes such as stroke and bleeding. In this review, we summarize current literature, present technology, population-based screening considerations, and consensus guidelines addressing the role of AF screening in practice.

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)0.009
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.487
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.047 · 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

Citations101
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation ResearchSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207