MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095704155 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241643

Systematic review of pre-clinical therapies for post-operative atrial fibrillation

2020· review· en· W3095704155 on OpenAlexafffund
Chanhee Seo, Connor Michie, Benjamin Hibbert, Darryl R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineCardiologyMEDLINEInternal medicineIntensive care medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequent cardiothoracic surgery complication that increases hospital stay, mortality and costs. Despite decades of research, there has been no systematic overview and meta-analysis of preclinical therapies for POAF in animal models. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception through September 2020 to determine the effect of preclinical POAF therapies on primary efficacy outcomes using a prospectively registered protocol (CRD42019155649). Bias was assessed using the SYRCLE tool and CAMARADES checklist. RESULTS: Within the 26 studies that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, we identified 4 prevention strategies including biological (n = 5), dietary (n = 2), substrate modification (n = 2), and pharmacological (n = 17) interventions targeting atrial substrate, cellular electrophysiology or inflammation. Only one study altered more than 1 pathophysiological mechanism. 73% comprised multiple doses of systemic therapies. Large animal models were used in 81% of the studies. Preclinical therapies altogether attenuated atrial fibrosis (SMD -2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.95 to -1.22; p < 0.00001; I2 = 47%), AF inducibility (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; p = 0.008; I2 = 39%), and AF duration (SMD -2.19; 95% CI -3.05 to -1.32; p < 0.00001; I2 = 50%). However, all the criteria needed to evaluate the risk of bias was unclear for many outcomes and only few interventions were independently validated by more than 1 research group. CONCLUSION: Treatments with therapies targeting atrial substrate, cellular electrophysiology or inflammation reduced POAF in preclinical animal models compared to controls. Improving the quality of outcome reporting, independently validating promising approaches and targeting complimentary drivers of POAF are promising means to improve the clinical translation of novel therapies for this highly prevalent and clinically meaningful disease.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→