Practical approach for atrial cardiomyopathy characterization in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) causes progressive structural and electrical changes in the atria that can be summarized within the general concept of atrial remodeling. In parallel, other clinical characteristics and comorbidities may also affect atrial tissue properties and make the atria susceptible to AF initiation and its long-term persistence. Overall, pathological atrial changes lead to atrial cardiomyopathy with important implications for rhythm control. Although there is general agreement on the role of the atrial substrate for successful rhythm control in AF, the current classification oversimplifies clinical management. The classification uses temporal criteria and does not establish a well-defined strategy to characterize the individual-specific degree of atrial cardiomyopathy. Better characterization of atrial cardiomyopathy may improve the decision-making process on the most appropriate therapeutic option. We review current scientific evidence and propose a practical characterization of the atrial substrate based on 3 evaluation steps starting with a clinical evaluation (step 1), then assess outpatient complementary data (step 2), and finally include information from advanced diagnostic tools (step 3). The information from each of the steps or a combination thereof can be used to classify AF patients in 4 stages of atrial cardiomyopathy, which we also use to estimate the success on effective rhythm control. La fibrilación auricular (FA) causa cambios estructurales y eléctricos en las aurículas que se pueden resumir dentro del concepto general de remodelado auricular. Paralelamente, otras características clínicas y comorbilidades también pueden afectar a las propiedades del tejido auricular y favorecer tanto el inicio como el mantenimiento de la FA. En general, estos cambios patológicos en las aurículas configuran un estado de miocardiopatía auricular con importantes implicaciones en el control del ritmo. Aunque hay acuerdo general sobre el papel del sustrato auricular en las posibilidades de obtener un control eficaz del ritmo en la FA, la clasificación actual simplifica el tratamiento clínico utilizando criterios temporales y no establece una estrategia bien definida para precisar el grado de miocardiopatía auricular que afecta a un paciente concreto para así tomar decisiones sobre la opción terapéutica más adecuada a las características de la enfermedad del paciente. El trabajo revisa la evidencia científica actual y propone una caracterización práctica del sustrato auricular basada en 3 pasos de evaluación, comenzando con una valoración médica (paso 1) para luego evaluar datos de pruebas complementarias habituales (paso 2) y finalmente incluir información de medios diagnósticos avanzados (paso 3). La información de cada uno de los pasos o su combinación pueden utilizarse para una clasificación práctica de los pacientes con FA en 4 estadios de miocardiopatía auricular con implicaciones en las posibilidades de un control eficaz del ritmo.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".