MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014685152 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.1803

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Survival – The Fine Line Between Efficacy Concerns and Ageism

2020· letter· en· W3014685152 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathaniel M. Hawkins, Joanna Osmanska, Mark C. Petrie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorLine (geometry)Cardiac resynchronization therapyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article refers to 'One-year mortality after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement within the Veterans Affairs Health System' by M. Fudim et al., published in this issue on pages 859-867.In this issue of the Journal, Fudim et al. 1 examine all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 2.1 years in 17 901 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in the Veterans Affairs Health System.As expected in the Veterans Affairs Health System, the population was predominantly male (99%) with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (81% coronary artery disease), frequent cardiovascular risk factors, but only modest comorbidity burden [mean Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) 3.0].The analysis treads a familiar path of questioning the value of ICDs with advancing age, focusing on 1-year mortality which averaged 13% and was unchanged from 2007 to 2014.Independent predictors of death included age, coronary artery disease and risk factors, and non-cardiac conditions.The relationship between age and 1-year mortality was striking, rising from a few percentage age 40, to 30% in nonagenarians.Expressed by age quartile, 1-year mortality rose from 7% to 32% from the lowest to the highest quartile.Though tempting to largely attribute the relationship between age and survival to comorbidities, several observations temper this argument.First, only a minor increase in CCI occurred from youngest to oldest quartiles (2.75 to 3.07, respectively).Second, an extreme increase in CCI only correlated with a modest increase in 1-year mortality from around 10% to 20%.Third, comorbidities actually declined from 2007 to 2014 (CCI 3.1 to 2.8, P < 0.001), while overall mortality remained stable.Finally, age remained a powerful independent predictor of survival after adjustment for individual comorbidities.The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207