MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377012398 · doi:10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suad110

ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document: appropriate management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department

2023· article· en· W4377012398 on OpenAlexaff
Pasquale Caldarola, Fabio De Iaco, Francesco Pugliese, Leonardo De Luca, Andrea Fabbri, Carmine Riccio, Pietro Scicchitano, Simone Vanni, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Michele Massimo Gulizia, Domenico Gabrielli, Fabrizio Oliva, Furio Colivicchi

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Supplements · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentAtrial fibrillationIntensive care medicineManagement of atrial fibrillationCardioversionPsychological interventionMedical emergencyEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) accounts for 2% of the total presentations to the emergency department (ED) and represents the most frequent arrhythmic cause for hospitalization. It steadily increases the risk of thromboembolic events and is often associated with several comorbidities that negatively affect patient's quality of life and prognosis. AF has a considerable impact on healthcare resources, making the promotion of an adequate and coordinated management of this arrhythmia necessary in order to avoid clinical complications and to implement the adoption of appropriate technological and pharmacological treatment options. AF management varies across regions and hospitals and there is also heterogeneity in the use of anticoagulation and electric cardioversion, with limited use of direct oral anticoagulants. The ED represents the first access point for early management of patients with AF. The appropriate management of this arrhythmia in the acute setting has a great impact on improving patient's quality of life and outcomes as well as on rationalization of the financial resources related to the clinical course of AF. Therefore, physicians should provide a well-structured clinical and diagnostic pathway for patients with AF who are admitted to the ED. This should be based on a tight and propositional collaboration among several specialists, i.e. the ED physician, cardiologist, internal medicine physician, anesthesiologist. The aim of this ANMCO-SIMEU consensus document is to provide shared recommendations for promoting an integrated, accurate, and up-to-date management of patients with AF admitted to the ED or Cardiology Department, in order to make it homogeneous across the national territory.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0170.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.012

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal SupplementsSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207