MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 11595: Predicting Appropriate Shocks In Patients With Heart Failure: Patient Level Meta-analysis From SCD-HeFT and Madit II

2016· article· en· W2782810683 on OpenAlexaff
Emily P. Zeitler, Sana M. Al‐Khatib, Daniel J. Friedman, Joo Yoon Han, Gust H. Bardy, J. Thomas Bigger, Alfred E. Buxton, Arthur J. Moss, Kerry L. Lee, Richard C. Steinman, Paul Dorian, Alfred P. Hallstrom, Riccardo Cappato, Alan H. Kadish, Peter J. Kudenchuk, Daniel B. Mark, Lurdes Y. T. Inoue, Gillian D Sanders

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisHeart failureInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Some patients implanted with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) due to heart failure receive an appropriate shock, but no precise tools exist to predict this outcome. Methods: Using patient level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate ICD shock. A variety of clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate ICD shocks (Table). Results: There were 1,463 patients randomized to ICD from the two included trials; 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients with no appropriate shocks, patients who received any appropriate ICD shock tended to have NYHA class II or III heart failure symptoms, beta blocker therapy, lower LVEF, wider QRS duration, and a single versus dual chamber ICD (79% of all patients had a single chamber ICD). Other comorbidities were similar between groups. Significant independent predictors of appropriate ICD shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), LVEF based on one unit change (higher vs lower LVEF: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98), beta blocker therapy (presence vs absence: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.98), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, appropriate ICD shocks were significantly predicted by NYHA class, LVEF, beta blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD. There is a compelling need for a large, prospective study to better define the risk of appropriate ICD shocks in patients meeting criteria for a primary prevention ICD. Until such time, stratification of patients by these factors may better define risk for potentially mortal rhythm events that might be prevented by a primary prevention ICD.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.031
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→