Feasibility of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Use in Elderly Patients:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the feasibility and safety of ICD therapy in patients >80 years of age. Recent trials have expanded the indication for ICD implantation to include an increasing number and variety of patients. The feasibility of ICD implantation in elderly patients has not been adequately studied. A prospectively collected single center ICD database was analyzed to assess the safety and feasibility of ICD implantation in elderly patients. Patients were divided based on age into two groups (group 1: 70-79 years of age, n = 183; group 2: >or=80 years of age, n = 29). The two groups were similar in gender distribution, NYHA class, and indication for implantation. The actuarial survival was not significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (P > 0.05; primary endpoint), with a 1-year survival of 91% and 93% in groups 1 and 2, respectively, (P = NS). The complication rates at the time of ICD implantation were similar in groups 1 and 2 (6.6% and 13.1%, respectively, P = 0.16). Age alone may not be sufficient criteria to exclude ICD implantation. The current consensus guidelines for ICD implantation appear to be generalizable to treating octogenarians who are otherwise medically fit.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".