Is electrical storm in ICD patients the sign of a dying heart? Outcome of patients with clusters of ventricular tachyarrhythmias
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical storm in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is purported to carry an ominous prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively compared 40 patients with electrical storm (defined as three or more episodes of ventricular arrhythmia requiring ICD therapy in a 24 h period) with those only having isolated appropriate ICD therapy (n=57) and with patients having no or only inappropriate ICD therapy (n=125). All patients received ICDs for documented sustained VT or VF. There was no significant difference in age, sex, ejection fraction, total follow-up time, or underlying heart disease between any of the three groups. Patients who had electrical storm received their first appropriate ICD therapy 275 +/- 369 days post-implant (35% had storm as their first event) with storm occurring an average of 599 +/- 710 days post-implant. Patients had 1.5 +/- 1.0 storms in total (median= 1), with 55 +/- 91 episodes per storm. There were no significant differences in actuarial survival at 5-year follow-up between the three groups. Eighty percent of storm patients were alive 5 years post-implant. CONCLUSION: Storm is a common occurrence in ICD patients, can occur at any time during the follow-up period, and does not independently confer increased mortality.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it