Successful videocapsule endoscopy in patients with an abdominal cardiac pacemaker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pacemaker location in the abdominal wall is considered a contraindication to videocapsule endoscopy (VCE). The aim of this study was to review our experience on the use of VCE in patients with a pacemaker located in the abdominal wall. VCE was carried out with monitoring of cardiac rhythm. This was a retrospective review of VCE case studies performed at two tertiary care university medical centers (pediatric and adult). The main outcome measures were adverse events and quality of VCE images. No adverse events were experienced in any of the five patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers, including the two with abdominal pacemaker. No interference with the VCE recording was observed during the studies, although the capsule was observed to be briefly inactivated by the pacemaker in one case. The present study, though small, suggests that VCE is safe in adult and pediatric patients who are fitted with cardiac pacemakers, even when implanted in the abdominal wall. The VCE exam can be carried out successfully under close supervision. Dysfunction of the capsule appears to be more likely than problems with cardiac pacing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".