Characteristics of antegrade-only accessory pathways in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is minimal data regarding antegrade-only accessory pathways in young patients. Given evolving recommendations and treatments, retrospective analysis of the clinical and electrophysiologic properties of antegrade-only pathways in patients <21 years old was performed, with subsequent comparison of electrophysiology properties to age-matched controls with bidirectional pathways. Of 522 consecutive young patients with ventricular pre-excitation referred for electrophysiology study, 33 (6.3%) had antegrade-only accessory pathways. Indications included palpitations (47%), chest pain (25%), and syncope (22%). The shortest value for either the accessory pathway effective refractory period or the pre-excited R-R interval was taken for each patient, with the median of the antegrade-only group significantly greater than shortest values for the bidirectional group (310 [280-360] ms versus 270 [240-302] ms, p < 0.001). However, the prevalence of pathways with high-risk properties (effective refractory period or shortest pre-excited R-R interval <250 ms) was similar in both study patients and controls (13% versus 21%) (p = 0.55). Sixteen patients had a single antegrade-only accessory pathway and no inducible arrhythmia. Six patients had Mahaim fibres, all right anterolateral with inducible antidromic reciprocating tachycardia. However, 11 patients with antegrade-only accessory pathways and 3 with Mahaim fibres had inducible tachycardia due to a second substrate recognised at electrophysiology study. These included concealed accessory pathways (7), bidirectional accessory pathways (5), and atrioventricular node re-entry (2). Antegrade-only accessory pathways require comprehensive electrophysiology evaluation as confounding factors such as high-risk conduction properties or inducible Supraventricular Tachycardia (SVT) due to a second substrate of tachycardia are often present.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".