Progress in atrial fibrillation ablation during 25 years of <i>Europace</i> journal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first edition of Europace journal in 1999 came right around the time of the landmark publication of the electrophysiologists from Bordeaux, establishing how elimination of ectopic activity from the pulmonary veins (PVs) resulted in a marked reduction of atrial fibrillation (AF). The past 25 years have seen an incredible surge in scientific interest to develop new catheters and energy sources to optimize durability and safety of ablation, as well as study the mechanisms for AF and devise ablation strategies. While ablation in the beginning was performed with classic 4 mm tip catheters that emitted radiofrequency (RF) energy to create tissue lesions, this evolved to using irrigation and contact force (CF) measurement while increasing power. Also, so-called single-shot devices were developed with balloons and arrays to create larger contiguous lesions, and energy sources changed from RF current to cryogenic ablation and more recently pulsed field ablation with electrical current. Although PV ablation has remained the basis for every AF ablation, it was soon recognized that this was not enough to cure all patients, especially those with non-paroxysmal AF. Standardized approaches for additional ablation targets have been used but have not been satisfactory in all patients so far. This led to highly technical mapping systems that are meant to unravel the drivers for the maintenance of AF. In the following sections, the development of energies, strategies, and tools is described with a focus on the contribution of Europace to publish the outcomes of studies that were done during the past 25 years.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".