Atrial Cardiomyopathy: From Healthy Atria to Atrial Failure. A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Heart Failure Association of the ESC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of atrial cardiomyopathy (AtCM) as a specific clinical entity is increasingly recognized. Past definitions have varied, and the lack of consistent cut-offs for imaging parameters and biomarkers have limited clinical utility to diagnose and track AtCM progression. While research has mainly focused on AtCM in the context of atrial fibrillation, emerging evidence underscores its relevance in remodelling and development of heart failure. The aim of this consensus document was to provide a contemporary framework for AtCM, evolve the definitions of AtCM and atrial failure for more widespread clinical use, and help to direct emerging research and future clinical trials. Supporting the work of early career researchers, this consensus document evaluates diagnostic markers and summarizes the underpinning mechanisms, clinical characteristics and prognostic impact of AtCM. Our objective was to bring together new translational scientific progress, catalyse future research and enable clinical application to facilitate better management, for example in patient groups where aggressive control of risk factors or comorbidities could prevent AtCM progression. We redefined AtCM as a graded disorder that includes electrical dysfunction of the atria along with evidence of either mechanical atrial dysfunction, atrial enlargement and/or atrial fibrosis. Atrial failure is the end-stage manifestation of AtCM, characterized by progressive structural, electrophysiological and functional changes. Earlier identification, risk stratification and ongoing research into therapeutic options have the potential to prevent the clinical consequences of AtCM and atrial failure, including adverse patient outcomes and poor quality of life associated with atrial fibrillation and heart failure.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".