MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Applications, Complications, and Outcomes of Transvenous Pacemaker Implantation in 105 Dogs (1997–2002)

2006· article· en· W2019391579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerhard Wess, William P. Thomas, Denise M. Berger, Mark D. Kittleson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Internal Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrioventricular blockSick sinus syndromeLethargySSS*ComplicationTransvenous pacingSurgeryHeart blockAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineCardiologyElectrocardiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reviewed the indications for age and breeds of dogs who received transvenous endocardial artificial pacemaker (AP) implantation (n = 105) and complications and survival thereafter at a single institution over a 6-year period. A third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block (59%) and sick sinus syndrome (SSS; 27%) were the most common indications, along with a high-grade second-degree AV block (9%) and atrial standstill (5%). The most common breeds identified were Labrador Retriever (n = 16; 11 with a third-degree AV block), American Cocker Spaniel (n = 14; 10 with SSS), and Miniature Schnauzer (n = 13; all with SSS). Common presenting complaints were syncope (n = 66) and exercise intolerance or lethargy (n = 25). Half of the dogs (n = 52) had a history of acute onset of clinical signs (<2 weeks). Mean survival time for the 60 dogs who died during the study period was 2.2 years (range, 0.1-5.8 years). Major complications occurred in 13% of dogs and included lead displacement (n = 7), sensing problems that led to syncope (n = 3), infection at the pacemaker site (n = 1), bleeding (n = 1), and ventricular fibrillation during implantation (n = 1; successfully defibrillated). Minor complications occurred in 11 dogs (11%). The success rate of transvenous AP implantation was comparatively high (all dogs survived the first 48 hours), and the complication rate was comparatively low when compared with a previous multicenter study, most likely because of how commonly the procedure was performed and supervisory experience.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations73
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207