The Study of Antiarrhythmic Medications in Infancy (SAMIS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is one of the most common conditions requiring emergent cardiac care in children, yet its management has never been subjected to a randomized controlled clinical trial. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the 2 most commonly used medications for antiarrhythmic prophylaxis of SVT in infants: digoxin and propranolol. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of infants <4 months with SVT (atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia or atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia), excluding Wolff-Parkinson-White, comparing digoxin with propranolol. The primary end point was recurrence of SVT requiring medical intervention. Time to recurrence and adverse events were secondary outcomes. Sixty-one patients completed the study, 27 randomized to digoxin and 34 to propranolol. SVT recurred in 19% of patients on digoxin and 31% of patients on propranolol (P=0.25). No first recurrence occurred after 110 days of treatment. The 6-month recurrence-free status was 79% for patients on digoxin and 67% for patients on propranolol (P=0.34), and there were no first recurrences in either group between 6 and 12 months. There were no deaths and no serious adverse events related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in SVT recurrence in infants treated with digoxin versus propranolol. The current standard practice may be treating infants longer than required and indicates the need for a placebo-controlled trial. Clinical Trial Registration Information- http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT-00390546.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".