MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137064634 · doi:10.1093/cvr/cvab093

Why translation from basic discoveries to clinical applications is so difficult for atrial fibrillation and possible approaches to improving it

2021· review· en· W3137064634 on OpenAlex
Stanley Nattel, Philip T. Sager, Jörg Hüser, Jordi Heijman, Dobromir Dobrev

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthZonMwDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean CommissionNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineAtrial fibrillationNarrative reviewCatheter ablationRisk analysis (engineering)Clinical trialPopulationMechanism (biology)CardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained clinical arrhythmia, with a lifetime incidence of up to 37%, and is a major contributor to population morbidity and mortality. Important components of AF management include control of cardiac rhythm, rate, and thromboembolic risk. In this narrative review article, we focus on rhythm-control therapy. The available therapies for cardiac rhythm control include antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter-based ablation procedures; both of these are presently neither optimally effective nor safe. In order to develop improved treatment options, it is necessary to use preclinical models, both to identify novel mechanism-based therapeutic targets and to test the effects of putative therapies before initiating clinical trials. Extensive research over the past 30 years has provided many insights into AF mechanisms that can be used to design new rhythm-maintenance approaches. However, it has proven very difficult to translate these mechanistic discoveries into clinically applicable safe and effective new therapies. The aim of this article is to explore the challenges that underlie this phenomenon. We begin by considering the basic problem of AF, including its clinical importance, the current therapeutic landscape, the drug development pipeline, and the notion of upstream therapy. We then discuss the currently available preclinical models of AF and their limitations, and move on to regulatory hurdles and considerations and then review industry concerns and strategies. Finally, we evaluate potential paths forward, attempting to derive insights from the developmental history of currently used approaches and suggesting possible paths for the future. While the introduction of successful conceptually innovative new treatments for AF control is proving extremely difficult, one significant breakthrough is likely to revolutionize both AF management and the therapeutic development landscape.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.596
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.103 · 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