Continuous Template Collection and Updating for Electrogram Morphology Discrimination in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electrogram morphology analysis improves discrimination of supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) from ventricular tachycardias (VTs) in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), but electrogram morphology may change with lead maturation, drugs, or disease progression. We report the clinical performance of an automatic algorithm that creates and updates templates from non-paced, slow rhythm and continuously checks the quality of the template used for arrhythmia discrimination. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied this algorithm in 193 patients with single-chamber ICDs (Marquis VR, Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). Of the 112 patients who completed 6-month follow-up, 99.1% of the patients had > or =1 automatic template created. Match scores between template and ongoing rhythm are computed using Haar Wavelets. Of the 435 automatic templates evaluated at follow-up, 423 (97.2%) had a median match score > or =70%. Intrinsic rhythm at 1 month had significantly higher match scores (P < 0.001) with automatic templates (90.3 +/- 7.0%) than with manual templates (85.7 +/- 10.9%) generated at pre-hospital discharge (PHD). The percentage of appropriately rejected SVTs was slightly higher with the automatic template (280/339 episodes) than with the manual template at PHD (272/339 episodes) while the Wavelet detection of VT was the same (218/220 episodes). CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving ICDs, the automatic templates were successfully created during a 6-month follow-up period, and consistently matched the patients' intrinsic rhythm at the nominal match threshold. Both early (<1 month postimplant) and late (1- to 3-month follow-up period) changes in electrogram morphology were identified, confirming the need for automatic template updating.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".