MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Addendum to “Personal and Public Safety Issues Related to Arrhythmias That May Affect Consciousness: Implications for Regulation and Physician Recommendations: A Medical/ Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology” Public Safety Issues in Patients With Implantable Defibrillators A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the Heart Rhythm Society

2007· letter· en· W2061929818 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew E. Epstein, Christina A. Baessler, Anne B. Curtis, N.A. Mark Estes, Bernard J. Gersh, Blair P. Grubb, L. Brent Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSudden cardiac deathAffect (linguistics)Primary preventionImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorPublic healthMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineFamily medicineCardiologyInternal medicineDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OVERVIEW: In 1996, the American Heart Association developed a scientific statement entitled "Personal and Public Safety Issues Related to Arrhythmias That May Affect Consciousness: Implications for Regulation and Physician Recommendations." Since then, multiple trials have established the role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: The issue of driving for patients with ICDs implanted for primary prevention was briefly discussed in the original statement, with the recommendation that such patients not be restricted from driving beyond the initial phase of healing. This scientific statement has been developed to extend the original 1996 recommendations and to provide specific recommendations on driving for individuals with ICDs implanted for primary prevention. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Patients receiving ICDs for primary prevention should be restricted from driving a private automobile for at least 1 week to allow for recovery from implantation of the defibrillator. Thereafter, these driving privileges should not be restricted in the absence of symptoms potentially related to an arrhythmia. (2) Patients who have received an ICD for primary prevention who subsequently receive an appropriate therapy for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, especially with symptoms of cerebral hypoperfusion, should then be considered to be subject to the driving guidelines previously published for patients who received an ICD for secondary prevention. (3) Patients with ICDs for primary prevention must be instructed that impairment of consciousness is a possible future event. (4) These recommendations do not apply to the licensing of commercial drivers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0260.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.079

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations76
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207