MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Activity‐Responsive Pacing Produces Long‐Term Heart Rate Variability

2004· article· en· W1977935700 on OpenAlexaff
Satish R. Raj, Daniel E. Roach, MARY‐LOU KOSHMAN, Robert S. Sheldon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rate variabilityMedicineCardiologyHeart rateInternal medicineTerm (time)AmbulatoryCardiac pacingPoincaré plotRR intervalPhysicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Long-term heart rate variability (HRV) measures, including the standard deviation of means of successive 5-minute epochs of R-R interval intervals (SDANN) and the power law slope (beta), are important prognostic measures, yet their physiologic basis is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that long-term HRV arises from physical activity in a randomized cross-over study in patients with rate-responsive pacemakers. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ten patients with complete heart block and dual-chamber pacemakers underwent 24-hour periods of ambulatory ECG in each of three pacing modes: atrially tracked, fixed-rate, and rate-responsive pacing. SDANN, ultra low frequency (ULF; frequencies <0.0033 Hz), and beta slope were calculated; and high-frequency power and root mean square of consecutive normal R-R intervals (rMSSD) were calculated as measures of short-term HRV, which have autonomic origins. Long-term HRV measures were similar with atrially tracked and rate-responsive pacing and were much greater than in fixed-rate pacing (SDANN P = 0.0001; ULF P = 0.0001; beta slope P = 0.0002). Short-term HRV measures were similarly low in fixed-rate and rate-responsive pacing (P = NS) and were significantly lower than with atrially tracked pacing (P = 0.0034). CONCLUSION: Rate-responsive pacing reproduces long-term, but not short-term, measures of HRV, suggesting that they may be markers of heart rate responses to patient activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular ElectrophysiologySame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207