MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinct Clinical Features in the Recipients of the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Taiwan:

2003· article· en· W1942187960 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chia‐Ti Tsai, Shoei K. Stephen Huang, Jiunn-Lee Lin, Ling‐Ping Lai

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorInternal medicineCardiologyIncidence (geometry)Sudden cardiac deathEjection fractionClinical trialHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little information about the ICD is available from the Asian Pacific region. The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical features in ICD patients in Taiwan and to compare these features with those in patients in the Western populations, mainly the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS), the Antiarrhythmics versus Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) trial, and the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) trial. From February 1995 to October 2001, 101 ICDs were implanted in 92 patients (78 [84%] men) in 12 hospitals. Clinical presentations included sudden cardiac death due to VF/VT in 35 (38%) patients, syncopal VT in 25 (27%), drug refractory nonsyncopal VT in 27 (29%), and unexplained syncope with inducible sustained VT/VF in 5 (6%). The mean age was significantly younger than that in CIDS or AVID (59 +/- 16 vs 63 +/- 9 years in CIDS, P = 0.02; vs 65 +/- 11 years in AVID, P < 0.001), but was comparable to that in CASH (59 +/- 16 vs 58 +/- 11 years in CASH, P = 0.75). The mean LVEF was significantly higher than that in CIDS or AVID (48 +/- 19% vs 34 +/- 15% in CIDS, P < 0.001; vs 32 +/- 13% in AVID, P < 0.001), but was comparable to that in CASH (48 +/- 19 vs 46 +/- 19% in CIDS, P = 0.83). The ICD patients in the current study also showed a higher incidence of normal heart (23 vs 4% in CIDS, P < 0.001; vs 3% in AVID, P < 0.001; vs 9% in CASH, P < 0.001) and cardiomyopathy (41% vs 10% in CIDS, P < 0.001; vs 15% in AVID, P < 0.001; vs 11% in CASH, P < 0.001), but a lower incidence of coronary artery disease (29% vs 83% in CIDS, P < 0.001; vs 82% in AVID, P < 0.001; vs 73% in CASH, P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 28 +/- 24 months, 13 (14%) patients died. Older age was the only factor associated with poorer survival after ICD implantation. Forty-seven (51%) patients received appropriate ICD discharges during follow-up. History of prior myocardial infarction was the only factor associated with an earlier first appropriate ICD discharge and LVEF < 0.35 the only factor associated with subsequent poorer survival after the first ICD discharge. In conclusion, this study demonstrated many distinct clinical features in our ICD population that were different from those in the Western populations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207