MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133606260 · doi:10.1111/pace.14210

Atypical advanced interatrial block due to giant atrial lipoma

2021· article· en· W3133606260 on OpenAlexaff
Delicia Gentille-Lorente, Laura Scott, Luis Alberto Escobar‐Robledo, María Antonia Mesa‐Maya, Francesc Carreras, Adrián Baranchuk, Manuel Martínez‐Sellés, Roberto Elosúa, Antoni Bayés‐Genís, Antoni Bayés de Luna

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac tumors and thrombi
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLipomaCardiologyInteratrial septumInternal medicineRadiologyAtrial fibrillationLeft atrium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2012, a consensus report on interatrial blocks (IAB) was published, which established the electrocardiographic criteria for advanced IAB (A-IAB), consisting of a P-wave duration ≥120 ms plus biphasic ± morphology in the inferior leads (II, III, and aVF).1 The abnormal P-wave morphology seen in A-IAB is due to the complete block of the sinus impulse at the Bachmann region with subsequent retrograde activation of the left atrium (LA). A recent paper has described atypical electrocardiographic findings of A-IAB consisting of either changes in P-wave duration (<120 ms) or P-wave morphology (alterations in the classic biphasic morphology in the inferior leads, but always presenting final negative component in aVF, representative of caudocranial activation of the LA).2 The accurate diagnosis of A-IAB remains imperative given the increased risk of atrial fibrillation and stroke, and the need for monitoring and possible treatment of these conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac tumors and thrombiFrench-language works237,207