Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pacing technology for many decades has been composed of a generator attached to leads that are usually transvenous. Recently, leadless pacemakers have been studied in clinical settings and now available for use in many countries. This includes the single-component Nanostim Leadless Cardiac Pacemaker and Micra Transcatheter Pacing System, as well as the multicomponent Wireless Stimulation Endocardial system. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical studies in single-component leadless pacing technology has shown that they can be successfully implanted with minimal complications. The follow-up studies also seem to confirm the findings from the initial clinical trials. These systems offer some advantages over a traditional pacing system comprised of a subcutaneous generator and transvenous leads. SUMMARY: In many ways, these leadless systems are disruptive technologies that are changing the traditional pacemaker concept and preferred for some patients. Ongoing research is needed to better assess their long-term function, safety, and end-of-life strategies. In the future, multichamber leadless pacing is expected to be developed and perhaps obviating the need for transvenous leads and their associated 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".