Characterization of Phrenic Nerve Response to Pulsed Field Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phrenic nerve palsy is a well-known complication of cardiac ablation, resulting from the application of direct thermal energy. Emerging pulsed field ablation (PFA) may reduce the risk of phrenic nerve injury but has not been well characterized. METHODS: Accelerometers and continuous pacing were used during PFA deliveries in a porcine model. Acute dose response was established in a first experimental phase with ascending PFA intensity delivered to the phrenic nerve (n=12). In a second phase, nerves were targeted with a single ablation level to observe the effect of repetitive ablations on nerve function (n=4). A third chronic phase characterized assessed histopathology of nerves adjacent to ablated cardiac tissue (n=6). RESULTS: <0.001). Furthermore, acute results demonstrated that phrenic nerve function responded to varying levels of PFA and catheter proximity placements, resulting in either: no effect, effect, or stunning. In the chronic study phase, successful isolation of superior vena cava at a dose not predicted to cause phrenic nerve dysfunction was associated with normal phrenic nerve function and normal phrenic nerve histopathology at 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Proximity of the catheter to the phrenic nerve and the PFA dose level were critical for phrenic nerve response. Gross and histopathologic evaluation of phrenic nerves and diaphragms at a chronic time point yielded no injury. These results provide a basis for understanding the susceptibility and recovery of phrenic nerves in response to PFA and a need for appropriate caution in moving beyond animal models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".