Magnetic Interference of Cardiac Pacemakers from a Surgical Magnetic Drape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sterile magnetic drapes are frequently used during surgery to hold metal instruments on the sterile field. Magnetic fields may potentially interfere with the function of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices such as pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. In this study, we evaluated the potential magnetic interference of magnetic drapes on pacemaker function. A magnetic drape with 70 magnets was placed with its approximate center over the pacemaker of 50 patients during their visit to the cardiology clinic. In those pacemakers that demonstrated magnetic interference, the drape was pulled caudally in 3-cm increments until the interference ceased. If there was no interference, the drape was folded in 2 over the pacemaker. The number of magnets necessary to maintain magnetic interference with the pacemaker was also tested. Magnetic interference was observed in the pacemakers of 47 (94%) patients: 35 with the unfolded drape and another 12 with the folded drape. Patients whose pacemakers had interference with the unfolded drape weighed less (68 ± 15 kg vs 81 ± 19 kg; P = 0.016) than those who had no interference. In 54% of patients, magnetic interference ceased when the drape was pulled 3 cm caudally and at 15 cm, no pacemaker had magnetic interference. Magnetic drapes may cause magnetic interference with cardiac pacemakers, and this interference ceases at a caudal distance of 15 cm. Magnetic interference seems more likely in patients with lower body weight. Careful monitoring of the pulse and electrocardiogram for asynchronous pacing activity should be considered when magnetic drapes are used in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".