Epicardial ventricular arrhythmia ablation: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology and the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epicardial access during electrophysiology procedures offers valuable insights and therapeutic options for managing ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). The current clinical consensus statement on epicardial VA ablation aims to provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of this complex clinical scenario. It offers structured advice and a systematic approach to patient management. Specific sections are devoted to anatomical considerations, criteria for epicardial access and mapping evaluation, methods of epicardial access, management of complications, training, and institutional requirements for epicardial VA ablation. This consensus is a joint effort of collaborating cardiac electrophysiology societies, including the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society.
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".