MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical Risk Stratification for Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

2015· article· en· W1891676651 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas S. Lee, Judy Hardy, Raymond Yee, Jeff S. Healey, David Birnie, Christopher S. Simpson, Eugene Crystal, Iqwal Mangat, Kumaraswamy Nanthakumar, Xuesong Wang, Andrew D. Krahn, Paul Dorian, Peter C. Austin, Jack V. Tu

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHealth Sciences CentreKingston General HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineVentricular tachycardiaImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorCumulative incidenceInternal medicineAmiodaroneCardiologyHazard ratioEjection fractionPopulationShock (circulatory)Proportional hazards modelAtrial fibrillationCohortHeart failureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A conceptualized model may be useful for understanding risk stratification of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators considering the competing risks of appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock versus mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective, multicenter, population-based cohort with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% referred for primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator, we developed dual risk stratification models to determine the competing risks of appropriate defibrillator shock versus mortality using a Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model. Among 7020 patients referred, 3445 underwent defibrillator implant (79.7% men, median, 66 years [25th, 75th: 58-73]). During 5918 person-years of follow-up, appropriate shock occurred in 204 patients (3.6 shocks/100 person-years) and 292 died (4.9 deaths/100 person-years). Competing risk predictors of appropriate shock included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, serum creatinine concentration, digoxin or amiodarone use, and QRS duration near 130-ms peak. One-year cumulative incidence of appropriate shock was 0.9% in the lowest risk category, and 1.7%, 2.5%, 4.9%, and 9.3% in low, intermediate, high, and highest risk groups, respectively. Hazard ratios for appropriate shock ranged from 4.04 to 7.79 in the highest 3 deciles (all P≤0.001 versus lowest risk). Cumulative incidence of 1-year death was 0.6%, 1.9%, 3.3%, 6.2%, and 17.7% in lowest, low, intermediate, high, and highest risk groups, respectively. Mortality hazard ratios ranged from 11.48 to 36.22 in the highest 3 deciles (all P<0.001 versus lowest risk). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous estimation of risks of appropriate shock and mortality can be performed using clinical variables, providing a potential framework for identification of patients who are unlikely to benefit from prophylactic implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations60
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207