Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Interference was observed in four (1.6%) patients, with a mode switch from dual mode, dual pacing and dual sensing (DDD) to asynchronous dual mode (DOO) pacing in three patients with unipolar sensing. One such patient had underlying complete atrioventricular block and experienced light-headedness. The lowest value that induced a mode-switch was 45 µT. Importantly, if devices were programmed exclusively to bipolar sensing configurations, none of the 153 tests provoked a mode switch. In one test with bipolar sensing, transient ventricular pacing with a shorter than programmed atrioventricular delay occurred as a result of interference with an auto-capture feature. The authors therefore concluded that, in patients with unipolar sensing, electromagnetic interference may cause sustained asynchronous mode reversion and pacing inhibition. Risks with bipolar sensing appeared negligible, although the investigators recommended disabling auto-capture in exposed patients with applicable pacemaker models. Souques noted that, in Europe, the maximum flux density encountered under a 400kV power line is 30 µT, a value below the previously suggested asynchronous mode reversion threshold. However, in North America, 765 kV lines may produce a flux density of 40–60 µT. Although such levels are rarely reached, they are within the range associated with electromagnetic interference, notably mode-switches, when leads are programmed to unipolar sensing. We concur that, in patients with bipolar sensing, the current state of knowledge suggests that risk associated with walking or living within the vicinity of power lines appears insignificant.Yours faithfully,
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".