Cardioneuroablation for swallowing-induced syncope: To pace or to ablate, that is the question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key Teaching Points•Cardioneuroablation can be considered as an alternative to pacing in selected patients with swallow syncope that are refractory to conservative management.•The sites and extent of ablation depend on the type of cardioinhibitory response (asystole vs atrioventricular block), although a complete vagal denervation involving both atria probably offers the best chances of clinical success.•Zero-fluoroscopy is a feasible approach for cardioneuroablation that minimizes the effects of radiation exposure for patients and health care staff. •Cardioneuroablation can be considered as an alternative to pacing in selected patients with swallow syncope that are refractory to conservative management.•The sites and extent of ablation depend on the type of cardioinhibitory response (asystole vs atrioventricular block), although a complete vagal denervation involving both atria probably offers the best chances of clinical success.•Zero-fluoroscopy is a feasible approach for cardioneuroablation that minimizes the effects of radiation exposure for patients and health care staff.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".