Determinants of implantable defibrillator discharges in high-risk patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Figure 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify the determinants of appropriate and inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) discharges in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: ICD clinic at an academic hospital. PATIENTS: 61 patients with HCM who received ICDs for the primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). OUTCOME MEASURES: (a) Analysis of appropriate and inappropriate ICD discharges; (b) predictors of ICD discharges. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age at ICD insertion was 46 (18) years (range 10-79). Follow-up time was 40 (27) months (range 7-151). Eight patients experienced an appropriate discharge, occurring 24.5 (13.6) months after ICD insertion. Appropriate ICD intervention was more common in the secondary (36%) than the primary (8%) prevention group (p = 0.02). Inappropriate ICD discharges occurred in 20 (33%) patients. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified two significant predictors of inappropriate ICD discharges: (a) age <30 years at the time of ICD insertion (hazard ratio (HR) = 3.0 (95% CI 1.1 to 8.0; p = 0.03) and (b) history of atrial fibrillation (HR = 3.1 (95% CI 1.2 to 8.1; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: ICDs are effective in the prevention of SCD in HCM. However, there is a high incidence of inappropriate ICD discharges.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".