Baseline Demographics, Safety, and Patient Acceptance of an Insertable Cardiac Monitor for Atrial Fibrillation Screening: The REVEAL-AF Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
=2 plus one or more of the following: coronary artery disease, renal impairment, sleep apnea or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Exclusions included stroke or transient ischemic attack occurring in the previous year. Of 450 subjects screened, 399 underwent a device insertion attempt, and 395 were included in the final analysis (Reveal XT: n=122; Reveal LINQ: n=273; excluded: n=4). Participants were primarily identified by demographic characteristics and the presence of nonspecific symptoms, but without prior documentation of "overt" AF. The most common symptoms were palpitations (51%), dizziness/lightheadedness/pre-syncope (36%), and shortness of breath (36%). Over 100 subjects were enrolled in each pre-defined CHADS2 subgroup (2, 3 and ≥4). AF risk factors not included in the CHADS2 score were well represented (prevalence≥15%). Procedure and/or device related serious adverse events were low, with the miniaturized Reveal LINQ ICM having a more favorable safety profile than the predicate Reveal XT (all: n=13 [3.3%]; LINQ: n=6 [2.2%]; XT: n=7 [5.7%]). These data demonstrate that REVEAL AF was successful in enrolling its target population, high risk patients were willing to undergo ICM monitoring for AF screening, and ICM use in this group is becoming increasingly safe with advancements in technology. A clinically meaningful incidence of device detected AF in this study will inform clinical decisions regarding ICM use for AF screening in patients at risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".