MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

To Beat or Not to Beat: When and How to Treat Premature Ventricular Complexes

2025· review· en· W4415753401 on OpenAlex
Andrés Enríquez, Matthew Hanson, Fermin C. García

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

VenueAnnual Review of Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk stratificationHeart diseaseSudden cardiac deathBeat (acoustics)ElectrocardiographyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) are prevalent arrhythmias and a common reason for cardiac consultation. While often benign, PVCs can be markers of underlying heart disease and result in significant symptoms, left ventricular dysfunction, and in rare cases sudden cardiac death. The evaluation of a patient with PVCs should answer two essential questions: ( a ) Is the arrhythmia benign or it is a manifestation of a more serious heart condition? ( b ) Does the patient require specific therapy to suppress the PVCs? This review focuses on risk stratification of patients to identify who may benefit from further evaluation and the clinical scenarios wherein treatment of PVCs should be considered.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.346 · 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