Comparing Phenotypes for Acute and Long-Term Response to Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is difficult to identify patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) most likely to respond to ablation. While any arrhythmia patient may recur after acutely successful ablation, AF is unusual in that patients may have long-term arrhythmia freedom despite a lack of acute success. We hypothesized that acute and chronic AF ablation outcomes may reflect distinct physiology and used machine learning of multimodal data to identify their phenotypes. METHODS: We studied 561 consecutive patients in the Stanford AF ablation registry (66±10 years, 28% women, 67% nonparoxysmal), from whom we extracted 72 data features of electrograms, electrocardiogram, cardiac structure, lifestyle, and clinical variables. We compared 6 machine learning models to predict acute and long-term end points after ablation and used Shapley explainability analysis to contrast phenotypes. We validated our results in an independent external population of n=77 patients with AF. RESULTS: <0.001). Phenotypes for long-term success reflected clinical and lifestyle features, while phenotypes for AF termination reflected electrical features. The need for AF induction predicted both phenotypes. The external validation cohort showed similar results (area under the curve=0.81 and 0.64, respectively) with similar phenotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term and acute responses to AF ablation reflect distinct clinical and electrical physiology, respectively. This de-linking of phenotypes raises the question of whether long-term success operates through factors such as attenuated AF progression. There remains an urgent need to develop procedural predictors of long-term AF ablation success.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".