Practice Variation in Establishing the Adequacy of Beta-Blockers as an Antiarrhythmic Agent in School-Aged Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers (BBs) are commonly prescribed to manage arrhythmias in children and adolescents without any standardised approach to establish BB adequacy. We invited all Canadian pediatric cardiologists to participate in an anonymous survey to understand practice variation in the assessment of BB adequacy in school-aged children and adolescents with arrhythmia or the potential for arrhythmia. METHODS: An electronic survey approved by the Institutional Ethics Board was distributed by e-mail to 96 Canadian pediatric cardiologists who had been active in practice for at least 1 year. Incomplete surveys were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-one cardiologists (43%) responded to all questions in the survey. Thirteen cardiologists (32%) reported always assessing BB adequacy, 17 (41%) did so only for specific arrhythmias, and 11 (27%) reported never performing such an assessment. A total of 19 cardiologists (46%) and 18 cardiologists (44%) reported using Holter monitoring and exercise testing, respectively, to assess beta receptor blockade adequacy. Thirteen cardiologists (32%) considered BB therapy adequate if Holter demonstrated a 20% decrease in heart rate (HR) from baseline, and 10 respondents (24%) defined adequate BB therapy using exercise testing as a 20% decrease in maximal HR or blood pressure from baseline. CONCLUSION: Despite wide variation in practice, Holter monitoring and exercise testing are commonly used methods to measure the adequacy of BB therapy. There are no standard criteria, but the majority (56%) reported using a 20% decrease in HR or blood pressure from the pretreatment state as a criterion for adequate BB therapy in children and adolescents with arrhythmia or the potential for arrhythmia.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".