MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344785245 · doi:10.1016/j.hrcr.2016.03.007

Late resolution of pacemaker lead–related severe tricuspid regurgitation and right ventricular dysfunction after percutaneous lead extraction: A case report and review of the literature

2016· article· en· W2344785245 on OpenAlexaff
F. Daniel Ramirez, Abdullah Ghthaith Almutairi, Ellamae Stadnick, Girish M. Nair, Mouhannad M. Sadek, David H. Birnie

Bibliographic record

VenueHeartRhythm Case Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyRegurgitation (circulation)Internal medicineLead (geology)Tricuspid valvePerforationComplicationTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyPercutaneousSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endocardial lead–related tricuspid regurgitation (ELTR) is an increasingly recognized complication of cardiac device implantation that can result in right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and right heart failure.1 Several mechanisms of ELTR have been proposed, including lead impingement on tricuspid valve (TV) leaflets; leaflet perforation; entanglement within the valve apparatus; adherence to TV leaflets, chordae, or papillary muscles; and altered RV activation or geometry owing to RV pacing.1,2 Irrespective of the mechanism(s) involved, it has been postulated that the mechanical and hemodynamic consequences of ELTR on the TV and RV should manifest by 6 months post–device implantation, delineating the time period during which compatible signs and symptoms should most raise suspicion for this condition and suggesting that early intervention may be important.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeartRhythm Case ReportsSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207