MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048853936 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.3.93

Atrial fibrillation had a negative impact on quality of life, and treatment with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with atrial therapies helped patients regain a sense of normalcy

2004· letter· en· W2048853936 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne M. Tapp, Humeira Dhanji

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationMedicineDefibrillationInternal medicineWeb of scienceImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorCardiologyQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical PracticePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deaton C, Dunbar SB, Moloney M, et al . Patient experiences with atrial fibrillation and treatment with implantable atrial defibrillation therapy. Heart Lung 2003;32:291–9.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are patients’ experiences of living with symptomatic, drug refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) and treatment with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with atrial therapies (ICD-AT)? Descriptive qualitative approach. 3 clinical centres in the USA. 11 patients (mean age 63 y, age range 35–80 y, 73% men) who had AF that was unresponsive to treatment for 1–20 years. Patients had been living with an ICD-AT device for a period of 6 months to 2 years. Patients had no documented ventricular arrhythmia. Patients participated in semistructured interviews, which were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. 3 researchers coded the data according to key findings and themes using a qualitative interpretive approach. Codes were compared, and discrepancies were settled by a consensus process. Patients described a … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DHeart%2B%2526%2Blung%2B%253A%2B%2Bthe%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bcritical%2Bcare%26rft.stitle%253DHeart%2BLung%26rft.aulast%253DDeaton%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%26rft.volume%253D32%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D291%26rft.epage%253D299%26rft.atitle%253DPatient%2Bexperiences%2Bwith%2Batrial%2Bfibrillation%2Band%2Btreatment%2Bwith%2Bimplantable%2Batrial%2Bdefibrillation%2Btherapy.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0147-9563%252803%252900074-8%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14528186%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0147-9563(03)00074-8&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14528186&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F93.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000185730700001&link_type=ISI

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207