MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183962277 · doi:10.1016/j.eupc.2005.02.026

Long-term performance of a new catheter delivered lead

2005· article· en· W2183962277 on OpenAlexaff
Emőke Pósán, Raymond Yee, Basilios Petrellis, Damian Redfearn, George J. Klein, Andrew D. Krahn, Allan C. Skanes, Lorne J. Gula

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLead (geology)ImplantCatheterCardiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Medtronic 3830 lead is a 4Fr catheter-delivered bipolar, fixed screw lead that facilitates alternate right heart pacing whose short-term behavior has been characterized. Its longterm performance has not been described. This retrospective study assessed the longterm electrical performance of the lead. Implant and pre-hospital discharge [PHD], 12 and 52 weeks(wk) measurements of electrogram amplitude [EGM-mV], impedance (Imped-ohms), thresholds [V] were reviewed. 43 patients, aged 70 years (range 41–92) received 29 atrial(A) and 41 ventricular (V) leads. V implant site was apex(14), septum(25), other(2). A lead follow-up was 45±38 wks and 34±36 wks for V lead. Data are presented below(mean±D): *p≤0.01 compared to implant A and V lead impedance declined after implant A or V lead and threshold voltage rose on follow-up. There was no difference between RV apical versus non-apical implant site. The 3830 lead showed good chronic electrical performance over a year of follow-up regardless of implant site.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207