Atrial cardiomyopathy revisited—evolution of a concept: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The concept of "atrial cardiomyopathy" (AtCM) had been percolating through the literature since its first mention in 1972. Since then, publications using the term were sporadic until the decision was made to convene an expert working group with representation from four multinational arrhythmia organizations to prepare a consensus document on atrial cardiomyopathy in 2016 (EHRA/HRS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus on atrial cardiomyopathies: definition, characterization, and clinical implication). Subsequently, publications on AtCM have increased progressively. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present consensus document elaborates the 2016 AtCM document further to implement a simple AtCM staging system (AtCM stages 1-3) by integrating biomarkers, atrial geometry, and electrophysiological changes. However, the proposed AtCM staging needs clinical validation. Importantly, it is clearly stated that the presence of AtCM might serve as a substrate for the development of atrial fibrillation (AF) and AF may accelerates AtCM substantially, but AtCM per se needs to be viewed as a separate entity. CONCLUSION: Thus, the present document serves as a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC, the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS) to contribute to the evolution of the AtCM concept.
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 | 0.066 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".