The ECG Belt for CRT response trial: Design and clinical protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ECG Belt for CRT response trial is designed to test the hypothesis that in patients traditionally less likely to respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), an individualized approach utilizing the electrocardiogram (ECG) Belt to guide lead placement, vector selection, and device programming is superior to current standard of care. The ECG Belt is a noninvasive mapping technology designed to measure beat by beat electrical activation of the left ventricle by utilizing unipolar measurements from multiple ECG electrodes on the body surface. The ECG Belt for CRT response trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, investigational pre-market research study conducted at 48 centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe and will randomize approximately 400 subjects. The trial has three arms (enrollment will be 2:1:1, respectively): utilization of the Belt to guide implant as well as postimplant programming, utilizing the Belt to guide postimplant programming alone, and a non-Belt control arm. AdaptivCRT will be an option in the treatment arm but not the control arms. The primary endpoint is change in left ventricular end-systolic volume between preimplant and at 6 months. This paper describes the design and analytic plan for the trial.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.013 |
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".