Influence of gender on ICD implantation for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study sought to investigate the influence of gender on access to ICD therapy and examine the influence of gender on subsequent ICD shock experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: The records of 353 consecutive patients (140 and 213 secondary prevention, respectively) who received their first ICD between January 2000 and March 2004 were reviewed. All patients fulfilled criteria for primary or secondary prevention ICD implantation. Baseline characteristics and ICD shock experiences were compared. Female patients were younger and less likely to have a history of ischaemic heart disease or atrial arrhythmias (P<0.01). In contrast, female patients were more likely to have heart failure and diabetes (P<0.01). Markedly fewer females received an ICD for either primary (M:F ratio 8.5:1, P<0.01) or secondary (M:F ratio 4.5:1, P<0.01) prevention. Further, significantly fewer female patients received an ICD for MADIT II indications (M:F 11.2:1, P<0.01). Over the mean follow-up of 1.8+/-1.1 years, gender had no influence upon the likelihood of receiving either an appropriate or an inappropriate shock (P=ns). CONCLUSION: Although male patients accounted for the great majority (85%) of all ICD recipients, there was no evidence of influence of gender on the likelihood of receiving an appropriate or inappropriate shock.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".