2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is clearly an effective therapy for selected patients in definable populations. The benefits and risks of ICD therapy are directly impacted by programming and surgical decisions. This flexibility is both a great strength and a weakness, for which there has been no prior official discussion or guidance. It is the consensus of the four continental electrophysiology societies that there are four important clinical issues for which there are sufficient ICD clinical and trial data to provide evidence-based expert guidance. This document systematically describes the >80% (83–100%, mean: 96%) required consensus achieved for each recommendation by official balloting in regard to the programming of (i) bradycardia mode and rate, (ii) tachycardia detection, (iii) tachycardia therapy, and (iv) the intraprocedural testing of defibrillation efficacy. Representatives nominated by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia (SOLAECE)-Latin American Society of Cardiac Pacing and Electrophysiology participated in the project definition, the literature review, the recommendation development, the writing of the document, and its approval. The 32 recommendations were balloted by the 35 writing committee members and were approved by an …
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 | 0.100 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".