Resynchronization/defibrillation for ambulatory heart failure trial: rationale and trial design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper reviews the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on patients with heart failure symptoms, in particular, in patients with mild symptoms of heart failure. It provides the rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial to determine if CRT, when added to implantable cardioverter defibrillator, will be beneficial in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, ventricular conduction delay and mild heart failure symptoms. RECENT FINDINGS: CRT has been demonstrated to improve functional capacity, quality of life, and reduce heart failure hospitalization in patients with advanced symptomatic heart failure, and evidence of a ventricular conduction abnormality on ECG. In patients with milder heart failure symptoms, three randomized controlled trials and observational studies failed to convincingly show improvement of functional status, but demonstrated improved ventricular reverse remodelling with more advanced heart failure patients. SUMMARY: Two large randomized clinical trials are currently ongoing (RAFT and MADIT-CRT). The results of these trials will determine the efficacy of CRT in patients with systolic heart failure, ventricular conduction abnormality and milder symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".