Shockingly shiny shoes—Inappropriate discharge from a subcutaneous defibrillator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key Teaching Points•The cumulative incidence of inappropriate shocks remains substantial among recipients of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs).•The most common cause of inappropriate shocks in S-ICDs is oversensing of myopotentials.•Strategies to decrease the incidence of inappropriate shocks include preimplant electrocardiographic screening, high ventricular rate cut-offs, dual-zone programming, and use of the SMART Pass filter.•Provocative testing may help identify the best sensing vector to minimize the risk of myopotential oversensing. •The cumulative incidence of inappropriate shocks remains substantial among recipients of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs).•The most common cause of inappropriate shocks in S-ICDs is oversensing of myopotentials.•Strategies to decrease the incidence of inappropriate shocks include preimplant electrocardiographic screening, high ventricular rate cut-offs, dual-zone programming, and use of the SMART Pass filter.•Provocative testing may help identify the best sensing vector to minimize the risk of myopotential oversensing.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".