MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378640001 · doi:10.1080/14779072.2023.2219057

Management for atrial arrhythmias in adults with complex congenital heart disease

2023· review· en· W4378640001 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Waldmann, Christophe Vô, Stefano Bartoletti, Francis Bessière, Marie Wilkin, Nabil Dib, Nicolas Combes, Paul Khairy

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of congenital heart disease (CHD) is steadily increasing among adults. Atrial arrhythmias are frequent late complications and are associated with substantial morbidity. AREAS COVERED: We discuss key considerations regarding management strategies for atrial arrhythmias in common forms of CHD and offer future perspectives. EXPERT OPINION: An appreciation of the types of atrial arrhythmias encountered in patients with diverse forms of CHD, combined with the growing clinical and research experience, appears to be yielding favorable results, whereas little progress has been made on the antiarrhythmic drug front, indications for anticoagulation have considerably evolved. Advances in interventional techniques have propelled catheter ablation to the forefront to treat a variety of atrial arrhythmias in patients with complex CHD. Nevertheless, much work remains to be done to elucidate underlying pathophysiology, triggers, and critical substrates that predispose patients with specific CHD malformations to develop atrial arrhythmias. Future advances could allow for the implementation of individualized, possibly preemptive, approaches to arrhythmia management. With the prevalence of atrial fibrillation on the rise in the aging population with CHD, concerted efforts must be directed toward optimizing patient selection for catheter ablation as well as refining procedural aspects to safely and more effectively improve long-term outcomes.

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)0.001
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207