MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 17946: How Common is New Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Single Chamber ICD Patients? Sub-analysis From the PainFree SST Study

2015· article· en· W2757645052 on OpenAlexaff
Edward J. Schloss, Angelo Auricchio, Takashi Kurita, Albert Meijer, Tyson Rogers, Tomoyuki Tejima, Laurence D. Sterns

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationIncidence (geometry)CardiologyInternal medicineSingle chamberArtificial cardiac pacemakerImplantSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Nearly 75% of ICD recipients have no history of atrial fibrillation (AF) at the time of initial implantation. Yet, many of these patients will develop new onset AF after implant which can lead to serious consequences if not detected and treated. To date, detection algorithms in single-chamber ICDs are not able to detect AF. We investigate how common is new onset AF in single chamber (SC) ICD recipients compared to CRT-D and dual chamber (DC) ICD recipients. Methods: A total of 924 patients with no history of AF from the PainFree SST study (CRT-D: N=321, DC ICD: N=303, SC ICD: N=300) were investigated. We used data from dual-chamber ICDs to estimate the incidence of new-onset AT/AF in SC ICD patients. A propensity score weighted analysis was performed using DC ICD data to match the baseline data of SC ICD patients. Patients with pacing indication were excluded from this evaluation because they would not be indicated for SC ICD. AT/AF-related complications include AT/AF-related serious adverse events, thromboembolic events, progress to AF lasting 7 days or more as well as inappropriate shocks due to AT/AF. Simulated SC ICD results were compared to actual DC and CRT-D results. Results: For AF episodes lasting 6 minutes or more, the incidence rates in CRT-D, DC ICD, and the estimated SC ICD were 28.0%, 23.4%, and 20.5% at 24 months, respectively (Table). The estimated incidence rates of AT/AF episodes in patients with SC ICD were comparable to those of DC ICD in each episode duration. Once the patients experienced first AT/AF episode, the complications were common (Table). Conclusions: AT/AF was frequently detected following implant in patients with no AF history receiving ICD or CRT-D and is associated subsequent AT/AF-related complications even in SC ICD recipients. Therefore, AT/AF monitoring in all ICDs patients may identify those at risk for these complications.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→