MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317902659 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4823

Sudden Cardiac Death in Young Individuals: A Current Review of Evaluation, Screening and Prevention

2023· review· en· W4317902659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramsha Abbas, Aiza Abbas, Talha Kamran Khan, Salal Sharjeel, Khadija Amanullah, Yusra Irshad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSudden cardiac deathEtiologyCoronary artery diseaseDiseasePopulationCause of deathYoung adultSudden deathIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) can affect all age groups, including young persons. While less common in the age < 35 population, the occurrence of SCD in the young raises concern, with multiple possible etiologies and often unanswered questions. While coronary artery disease is the leading cause in those > 35 years of age, the younger population faces a different subset of pathologies associated with SCD, including arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies. The tragic nature of SCD in the young entails that we explore and implement available screening methods for this population, and perform the necessary investigations such as electrocardiography (ECG) and echocardiography. In this review, we not only explore the vast etiology associated with SCD in those age < 35, but emphasize evaluation methods, who is at risk, and delve into screening of SCD in potential victims and their family members, in an attempt to prevent this traumatic event. Future research must work towards establishing preventative measures in order to reduce SCD, particularly unexplained SCD in the young.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.556
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.104 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207