The Importance of Arrhythmia Burden for Outcomes and Management Related to Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has been shown to be an effective treatment for AF, although our understanding of AF ablation outcomes until now, has been based on AF recurrence as a dichotomous variable. Reduction in AF burden, defined as the proportion of time that an individual is in AF during a monitoring period, has been already correlated to an improvement in quality of life and is likely a better assessment of success. Clinically, many patients may still have a few short recurrences of AF but feel much better. In addition, several studies have related higher AF burden with poorer health outcomes and a higher risk of stroke. Despite the growing understanding of AF burden, it is not clear yet which threshold of AF burden would be considered an appropriate outcome measure for AF ablation. Further investigations are needed to address that question. However, the reduction of AF burden seems to be a more accurate reflection of procedural success and a better predictor of prognosis and stroke risk than a single measure of AF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".