Artificial intelligence for individualized treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone ablation procedure for atrial fibrillation (AF), the optimal ablation procedure for persistent and long-standing persistent AF remains elusive. Targeting spatio-temporal electrogram dispersion in a tailored procedure has been suggested as a potentially beneficial alternative to a conventional PVI-only procedure. In this multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blind, superiority trial, patients with drug-refractory persistent AF were randomly assigned to a tailored ablation procedure targeting areas of spatio-temporal dispersion, as detected by an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, in addition to PVI (tailored arm, n = 187, 23% women) or to a conventional PVI-only procedure (anatomical arm, n = 183, 19% women). The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from documented AF with or without antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months after a single ablation procedure. Secondary endpoints included freedom from any atrial arrhythmic events, and the secondary composite safety endpoint consisted of death, cerebrovascular events, or treatment-related serious adverse events. One year post-procedure, the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint, which was achieved in 88% of patients in the tailored arm compared with 70% of patients in the anatomical arm (log-rank P < 0.0001 for superiority). However, no significant difference between arms was observed for the freedom from any atrial arrhythmia endpoint after one ablation. The safety endpoint did not differ between arms, with procedure and ablation times being twice as long in the tailored arm. These results show that AI-guided ablation of spatio-temporal dispersion areas in addition to PVI is superior to PVI alone in eliminating AF at 1-year follow-up in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent AF. Ablation of subsequent organized atrial tachycardias may be needed to maintain sinus rhythm long term. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04702451 .
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".