Lignes directrices pour le suivi des cardiostimulateurs au canada : consensus du groupe de travail canadien sur la cardiostimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un sondage sur les pratiques de cardiostimulation au Canada effectue en 1997 a revele un profond desir pour des lignes directrices nationales sur le suivi des cardiostimulateurs. Ces lignes directrices sur le suivi des cardiostimulateurs representent une declaration de consensus du Groupe de travail canadien sur la cardiostimulation. Le suivi des patients en personne plutot que par moyens transtelephoniques est preferable. Les patients devraient etre examines au minimum dans les 72 heures suivant l'implantation, 2 a 12 semaines et 6 mois apres l'implantation, et annuellement par la suite. Des examens plus frequents peuvent etre requis pour certains patients. Ceci dependra des problemes cardiovasculaires associes et des appareils en particulier. Une visite de suivi typique devrait comprendre un examen cardiovasculaire oriente, l'interrogation du systeme de cardiostimulation et une revue des donnees de telemetrie, un examen du rythme sous-jacent, un examen des seuils de stimulation et de detection et une reprogrammation adequate des parametres pour optimaliser le fonctionnement et la longevite de l'appareil.
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 | 0.034 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".