MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213127809 · doi:10.3410/f.1101087.557067

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in tetralogy of Fallot.

2008· dataset· en· W4213127809 on OpenAlexaff
Erwin Oechslin

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2008
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTetralogy of FallotVentricular tachycardiaCardiologyImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorInternal medicineHazard ratioPopulationVentricular fibrillationHeart diseaseConfidence interval

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tetralogy of Fallot is the most common form of congenital heart disease in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients, yet little is known about the value of ICDs in this patient population.METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multicenter cohort study in high-risk patients with Tetralogy of Fallot to determine actuarial rates of ICD discharges, identify risk factors, and characterize ICD-related complications. A total of 121 patients (median age 33.3 years; 59.5% male) were enrolled from 11 sites and followed up for a median of 3.7 years. ICDs were implanted for primary prevention in 68 patients (56.2%) and for secondary prevention in 53 (43.8%), defined by clinical sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia or resuscitated sudden death. Overall, 37 patients (30.6%) received at least 1 appropriate and effective ICD discharge, with a median ventricular tachyarrhythmia rate of 213 bpm. Annual actuarial rates of appropriate ICD shocks were 7.7% and 9.8% in primary and secondary prevention, respectively (P=0.11). A higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (hazard ratio 1.3 per mm Hg, P=0.004) and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (hazard ratio 3.7, P=0.023) independently predicted appropriate ICD shocks in primary prevention. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 5.8% of patients yearly. Additionally, 36 patients (29.8%) experienced complications, of which 6 (5.0%) were acute, 25 (20.7%) were late lead-related, and 7 (5.8%) were late generator-related complications. Nine patients died during follow-up, which corresponds to an actuarial annual mortality rate of 2.2%, which did not differ between the primary and secondary prevention groups.CONCLUSIONS: Patients with tetralogy of Fallot and ICDs for primary and secondary prevention experience high rates of appropriate and effective shocks; however, inappropriate shocks and late lead-related complications are common. PMID: 18172030

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: editorial/commentary
about Canada: no
confidence: medium

Faculty Opinions recommendation of a clinical cohort study of implantable defibrillators in tetralogy of Fallot; a commentary on a clinical finding, not a study of peer review.

GPT-5.6 (high)T3 · adjacent, not in scope
genre: editorial/commentary
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This post-publication recommendation comments on a biomedical study without studying peer review itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: other
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Faculty Opinions post-publication rating of a clinical ICD paper; uses review format, does not study peer review.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4130.289

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207