MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120773450 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa1051

Brugada syndrome and reduced right ventricular outflow tract conduction reserve: a final common pathway?

2020· letter· en· W3120773450 on OpenAlexafffund
Elijah R. Behr, Yael Ben‐Haim, Michael J. Ackerman, Andrew D. Krahn, Arthur A.M. Wilde

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNederlandse Federatie van Universitair Medische CentraZonMwHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaMayo Clinic
KeywordsBrugada syndromeMedicineCardiologyVentricular outflow tractInternal medicinePathophysiologySudden cardiac deathRepolarizationChannelopathyCardiomyopathyHeart failureElectrophysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brugada syndrome (BrS) was first described as a primary electrical disorder predisposing to the risk of sudden cardiac death and characterized by right precordial lead ST elevation. Early description of right ventricular structural abnormalities and of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) conduction delay in BrS patients set the stage for the current controversy over the pathophysiology underlying the syndrome: channelopathy or cardiomyopathy; repolarization or depolarization. This review examines the current understanding of the BrS substrate, its genetic and non-genetic basis, theories of pathophysiology, and the clinical implications thereof. We propose that the final common pathway for BrS could be viewed as a disease of 'reduced RVOT conduction reserve'.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0170.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations100
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207