Automatic Sensor Algorithms Expedite Pacemaker Follow‐ups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Automatic algorithms can be used to optimize settings and reduce the duration of pacemaker (PM) clinical follow-up. METHODS: This study prospectively evaluated 87 patients (74.2 +/- 10.7 years old, 52% men) who received PM with the Autoslope algorithm. Patients randomized to the manual group (group M, n = 43) performed a walk test and used sensor-indicated rate histograms to adjust the sensor, while in the automatic group (group A, n = 44) the sensor was automatically adjusted by the Autoslope. The patients were followed for 6 months. Follow-up time required for device interrogation and optimal sensor set-up, and the number of sensor parameters reprogramming were recorded. Changes in the patients' activity level were also evaluated. RESULTS: Group A required significantly less follow-up time than group M (9.4 +/- 5.7 min vs 13.5 +/- 8.5 min, P = 0.0002). The average number of sensor parameters reprogrammed during visits was significantly lower in group A than M (0.6 +/- 0.9 vs 0.9 +/- 1.3, P = 0.048). Threshold was adjusted 34.4% of the time in the sensor evaluations in group M versus 12.9% in group A (P = 0.0004). Although more patients in group A reported being more active, the changes in patients' activity level did not lead to increasing sensor setup time or number of parameter reprogramming in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Auto sensor adjustment required less time during routine PM clinical follow-up by reducing steps needed for manual sensor threshold adjustment.
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 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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".