MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389788020 · doi:10.1161/circep.123.012072

Clinical Management of Brugada Syndrome: Commentary From the Experts

2023· review· en· W4389788020 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Cutler, Lee L. Eckhardt, Elizabeth S. Kaufman, Elena Arbelo, Elijah R. Behr, Pedro Brugada, Marina Cerrone, Lia Crotti, Carlo de Asmundis, Michael H. Gollob, Minoru Horie, David T. Huang, Andrew D. Krahn, Barry London, Steven A. Lubitz, Judith A. Mackall, Koonlawee Nademanee, Marco Pérez, Vincent Probst, Dan M. Roden, Frédéric Sacher, Georgia Sarquella‐Brugada, Melvin M. Scheinman, Wataru Shimizu, Benjamin Shoemaker, Raymond W. Sy, Atsuyuki Watanabe, Arthur A.M. Wilde

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbInvitaeAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsBrugada syndromeGuidelineAsymptomaticMedicineIntensive care medicineRisk managementSudden cardiac deathPediatricsCardiologyInternal medicinePathologyManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there is consensus on the management of patients with Brugada Syndrome with high risk for sudden cardiac arrest, asymptomatic or intermediate-risk patients present clinical management challenges. This document explores the management opinions of experts throughout the world for patients with Brugada Syndrome who do not fit guideline recommendations. Four real-world clinical scenarios were presented with commentary from small expert groups for each case. All authors voted on case-specific questions to evaluate the level of consensus among the entire group in nuanced diagnostic and management decisions relevant to each case. Points of agreement, points of controversy, and gaps in knowledge are highlighted.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0120.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.310 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207