Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mathematics can be used to analyze and model cardiac arrhythmia. I discuss three different problems. (1) Diagnosis of atrial fibrillation based on the time intervals between subsequent beats. The probability density histograms of the differences of the intervals between consecutive beats have characteristic shapes for atrial fibrillation. (2) Curing atrial fibrillation by ablation of the core of rotors. Recent clinical studies have proposed that ablating the core of rotors in atrial tissue can cure atrial fibrillation. However, the claims are controversial. One problem that arises relates to difficulties associated with developing algorithms to identify the core of rotors. In model tissue culture systems, heterogeneity in the structure makes it difficult to unambiguously locate the core of rotors. (3) Risk stratification for sudden cardiac death (SCD). Despite numerous clinical studies, there is still a need for improved criteria to assess the risk of SCD. I discuss the possibility of using the dynamics of premature ventricular complexes to help make predictions. The development of wearable devices to record and analyze cardiac rhythms offers new prospects for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac arrhythmia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".