“Spontaneous Twiddler's” Syndrome: The Importance of the Device Shape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Twiddler's syndrome is caused by patient manipulation of the cardiac implantable device (CID) around its central axis within the pocket, resulting in retraction and dislocation of the electrodes. There are, however, some reports that Twiddler's syndrome may occur spontaneously without the patient's manipulation. This remains contentious as it may be argued that patients may not want to admit to manipulating the CID or may have been unaware of their actions. Recently, we have observed three very similar cases with a "spontaneous" Twiddler's syndrome resulting in lead displacement. All of the three patients denied device manipulation and were not prone to somnambulism or repetitive involuntary motor behaviors. It, therefore, seems highly unlikely that all patients could have manipulated the device in exactly the same way to result in the same postrotational position within the implant pocket. The fact is that the same device was implicated in all these cases in a relatively similar time sequence from implant to recognition of the implantable cardiac defibrillator rotation. We postulate that the unique elongated decision of the Fortify Assura (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA) ICD makes this device prone to spontaneous rotation as is exemplified by our case series.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".