MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pulsed Field Ablation: A Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies

2025· review· en· W4408781901 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioengineering · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAblationIrreversible electroporationCardiac electrophysiologyMedicinePulmonary veinCardiologyElectroporationBiomedical engineeringElectrophysiologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology that utilizes ultra-short high-voltage electric pulses to create nanopores in cell membranes, leading to cell death through irreversible electroporation (IRE). PFA is touted to be highly tissue-selective, which may mitigate the risk of collateral injury to vital adjacent structures. In the field of cardiac electrophysiology, initial studies have shown promising results for acute pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and lesion durability, with overall freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia comparable to traditional thermal ablation modalities. While further large studies are required for long-term efficacy and safety data, PFA has the potential to become a preferred energy source for cardiac ablation for some indications. This review outlines the basic principles and biophysics of IRE and its application to cardiac electrophysiology through a review of the existing preclinical and clinical data.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.376 · 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