Combined Minimally Invasive Surgical and Percutaneous Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid ablation is a novel therapy in the invasive management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) which combines minimally invasive surgical and percutaneous catheter-based techniques. The evidence is mainly based on observational studies from experienced centers, with success rates of approximately 70% and risks that are 2.0-fold to 3.6-fold higher than catheter-based ablation. Hybrid ablation is offered typically to patients with persistent or longstanding persistent AF which, by design, requires 2 procedures (epicardial surgical and endocardial catheter-based ablation). One randomized trial demonstrated that hybrid ablation was more effective than catheter-based ablation, but with higher complication rates. The incidence of the most serious complications has decreased in contemporary studies of hybrid ablation. At present, hybrid ablation should be performed by experienced centers on selected patients with persistent or longstanding persistent AF. Additional randomized trials are needed to define the risks, benefits, and cost effectiveness of hybrid ablation to identify its most appropriate application in clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".