MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117573255 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2025.12.012

New Insights in Exercise for Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy: A Narrative Review

2025· article· en· W7117573255 on OpenAlexafffund
Alwaleed Aljohar, Zachary Laksman, N. Boroditsky, Nathaniel Moulson, James McKinney

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsNarrative reviewSudden cardiac deathCardiomyopathyReview articleSudden deathCardiac arrhythmiaExercise prescription

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is an inherited cardiac condition and an important cause of sudden cardiac death among athletes. ACM may result in ventricular dysfunction with a high rate of ventricular arrhythmia disproportionate to the degree of cardiac chamber dilatation or dysfunction. Although ACM is genetically mediated for the most part, exercise has been recognized as a key modulator in its prognosis and outcomes. Several knowledge gaps exist surrounding the interaction between this condition and exercise. ACM is a heterogeneous condition with certain genotype-phenotype correlations that may result in differential impact of exercise. In addition, ACM patients traditionally have been relegated to participate in only low-intensity exercise, but this advice lacks objectivity and clear definitions, and no safe exercise thresholds have been proposed. Finally, no consensus has been reached on which exercise advice is to be given for genotype-positive phenotype-negative family members. The aim of this review is to address these concerns, propose a practical approach for exercise prescription in ACM, and provide an up-to-date literature review of the impact of exercise on the various subtypes of ACM.

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 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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207