Reconsideration of Pacemakers and MR Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of an implanted pacemaker is widely regarded as an absolute contraindication to magnetic resonance (MR) imaging; however, this viewpoint is based largely on safety concerns in the 1982-1996 period. Since 1996, changes in pacemaker electronics including decreased ferromagnetic content, increased sophistication of the circuitry, and onboard computer capabilities suggest that the absolute contraindication of MR imaging for pacemaker patients should be reconsidered. In addition, there are now data from prospective trials of 232 patients with demand pacemakers who underwent MR imaging at 0.5-1.5 T. Although a variety of pacemaker parameters were evaluated before, during, immediately after, and 3 months after MR imaging, no significant pacemaker changes were identified. No patients reported abnormal sensations such as pacemaker movement or irregular heartbeats even at direct questioning. These results suggest that peripheral locations such as the brain and knee may be considered for MR imaging. Thus, pacemaker patients should be assessed individually for their suitability for MR imaging, which may be performed safely under defined conditions.
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".