MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734532861 · doi:10.1161/circep.116.005093

Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death in Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

2017· article· en· W2734532861 on OpenAlexaff
Jim T. Vehmeijer, Zeliha Koyak, Werner Budts, Louise Harris, Candice K. Silversides, Erwin Oechslin, Berto J. Bouma, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Barbara J.M. Mulder, Joris R. de Groot

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Society of Cardiology
KeywordsMedicineSudden cardiac deathOdds ratioImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorHeart diseaseInternal medicineLogistic regressionCardiologySudden deathRisk stratificationOddsPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background— Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major cause of mortality in adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients. SCD may be prevented by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, but patient stratification remains troublesome. The 2014 Consensus Statement on Arrhythmias in ACHD patients and the 2015 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines specified recommendations for ICD implantation in ACHD patients for the first time. We assess the discriminative ability of these ICD recommendations for SCD in ACHD patients. Methods and Results— Of 25 790 ACHD patients in an international multicenter registry, we identified all SCD cases, matched to living controls by age, sex, congenital defect, and surgical repair. We assessed all primary prevention ICD recommendations listed in both documents. We used conditional logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic curves with area under the curve. Consensus Statement: One hundred twenty-four cases (median age at death, 33 years [26–44]; 67% men) and 230 controls were studied. In total, 41% of SCD cases and 17% of controls had an ICD recommendation (odds ratio, 5.9; P <0.001). European Society of Cardiology Guidelines: Of one hundred fifty-seven cases (median age at death, 33 years [26–48]; 64% men) and 292 controls, 35% and 14% had an ICD recommendation, respectively (odds ratio, 4.8; P <0.001). Conclusions— A minority of SCD cases had an ICD recommendation according to these guidelines, whereas the majority of SCD victims remained unrecognized. With an area under the curve of 0.6 to 0.7, the discriminative ability of both guidelines was mediocre. Critical clinical reasoning when deciding on ICD implantation in ACHD patients, therefore, remains vital.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207