Clinical and radiographic predictors of cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead failure at the time of initial implantation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To assess the clinical and radiographic factors associated with lead failure by comparing subjects with lead failure within 10 years of implantation with an implant‐year‐matched group without lead failure. Methods A case‐control study with 49 subjects who received Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device (CIED) between January 1, 1999 and July 31, 2008 and developed lead failure within 10 years of implantation in a single center. The control group consisted of subjects (n = 54) with normally functioning leads matched one‐to‐one by implant year. Results Among the failure group, the meantime from implantation to device lead failure was 4.70 ± 2.94 years. Older age at implantation was associated with a lower likelihood of lead failure (Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.28 (75 vs 42 years old), 95% CI 0.12‐0.63, P = .002). A larger smallest loop diameter on the chest radiograph was also associated with a lower likelihood of lead failure (OR = 0.51 (31 vs 14 mm), 95% CI 0.27‐0.97, P = .04). CIED type (defibrillator vs pacemaker) and Ottawa scores were not significantly associated with lead failure. Among lead‐specific parameters, defibrillation lead vs pace‐sense lead was associated with lead failure (OR = 3.91, 95% CI 1.95‐7.81, P < .001). Conclusions Younger age, defibrillation leads, and small lead loops are associated with lead failure in CIEDs. Techniques to avoid tight loops in the pocket could potentially reduce the risk of lead failure and bear important implications for the implanting physician.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it