MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Electrographic Flow Mapping for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Theoretical Basis and Preliminary Observations

2022· preprint· en· W4223971697 on OpenAlexaff
David E. Haines, Melissa H. Kong, Peter Ruppersberg, Philip Haeusser, Boaz Avitall, Tamás Szili‐Törok, Atul Verma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoveltyPulmonary veinAtrial fibrillationComputer scienceFlow (mathematics)ChaoticIsolation (microbiology)Electrical conductionAblationNeuroscienceMedicineCardiologyThermal conductionPsychologyPhysicsArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ablation strategies remain poorly defined for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with recurrence despite intact pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). As the ability to perform durable PVI improves, the need for advanced mapping to identify extra-PV sources of AF becomes increasingly evident. Multiple mapping technologies attempt to localize these self-sustained triggers and/or drivers responsible for initiating and/or maintaining AF; however, current approaches suffer from technical limitations. Electrographic flow (EGF) mapping is a novel mapping method based on well-established principles of optical flow and fluid dynamics. It enables the full spatiotemporal reconstruction of organized wavefront propagation within the otherwise chaotic and disorganized electrical conduction of AF. Given the novelty of EGF mapping and relative unfamiliarity of most clinical electrophysiologists with the mathematical principles powering the EGF algorithm, this paper provides an in-depth explanation of the technical/mathematical foundations of EGF mapping and demonstrates clinical applications of EGF mapping data and analyses.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→