MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Insertable Loop Recorder Use for Detection of Intermittent Arrhythmias

2004· review· en· W2096156488 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. Krahn, George J. Klein, Allan C. Skanes, Raymond Yee

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantable loop recorderCardiologyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of prolonged monitoring with the implanted loop recorders has revolutionized the quest for detection of elusive infrequent arrhythmias in patients with unexplained syncope. The capability of prolonged monitoring has permitted us to obtain symptom rhythm correlation in the majority of patients suspected to have underlying infrequent arrhythmia. The implanted loop recorder is easily implanted in the left pectoral region with a minimally invasive procedure, providing at least 14 months of continuous monitoring that is both patient and automatically activated. Several recent studies suggest that it plays a major role in patients with infrequent symptoms and suspected arrhythmia, including patients with syncope and conduction disturbances, mild to moderate underlying heart disease, and atypical epilepsy. In a randomized trial, the device was found to be cost-effective and improved diagnostic yield compared to conventional tilt and electrophysiological testing. Wider application of prolonged monitoring is ongoing, including assessment of ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, and conduction disturbances. The implantable loop recorder is most useful in patients with infrequent unexplained syncope when noninvasive testing is negative.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations67
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207