MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380769082 · doi:10.1161/circ.146.suppl_1.9547

Abstract 9547: Demographic Differences in Patients With Frequent PVCs and Cardiomyopathy in the General Population Receiving Ambulatory Holter Monitoring

2022· article· en· W4380769082 on OpenAlexaff
José F. Huizar, Adam Šíma, Connor S Comstock, Károly Kaszala, Alex Y. Tan, David S. Frankel, Francis E. Marchlinski, Marcin Kowalski, Parikshit S. Sharma, Edward P. Gerstenfeld, Marmar Vaseghi, Kalyanam Shivkumar, Rohit Malhotra, Carlos A. Morillo, Kenneth A. Ellenbogen

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryEjection fractionPopulationHeart failureHolter monitorCardiologyCardiomyopathyInternal medicineIschemic cardiomyopathyDemographicsPediatricsElectrocardiographyDemographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: A high burden of premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) has been associated with the development of cardiomyopathy (CM) and heart failure. However, the prevalence of high PVC burden and cardiomyopathy (CM) remain unclear. Hypothesis: The prevalence of high PVC burden (>5%) is underestimated in patients receiving Holter monitors and those with CM (LVEF <50%). Methods: A prospective multicenter clinical study of consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory Holter monitors (24 hours up to 2-weeks), between July 2018 through June 2020 were reviewed. Demographic data, PVC burden and LV function were collected within 6 months of Holter placement. Results: A total of 8 centers across the US provided a total of 6,808 patients with ambulatory Holter monitors. Four and 5% of patients undergoing Holter monitors had a PVC burden of 6-10% and >10%, respectively. A total of 3,938 patients had assessment of LVEF within 6 months of Holter, of which 634 (16%) had CM and 173 (4%) had both CM and PVCs > 5%. Males were more likely to have had LVEF assessment than females (58% vs. 55%, P=0.013). Table summarizes demographics in the overall population based on PVC burden and presence of CM. High PVC burden (>5%) was more prevalent in older, male, and White patients. In an ordinal logistic regression to assess PVC burden with gender separately for LVEF < or > 50%, females were found to have a higher PVC burden in the population with preserved LVEF (OR=1.59, 95% CI: 1.13, 2.22) but not with CM (LVEF < 50%, OR=1.13, 95% CI=0.97, 1.32). Females had a lower prevalence of high PVC burden (>5%) than males (7% vs. 11%; p<0.001), including among those with CM (23% vs. 29%, p=0.1). Conclusions: High PVC burden and CM are quite prevalent in the population undergoing Holter monitors. Older age is associated with higher PVC burden but no age difference is present between different PVC burdens in patients with CM. Females have a lower prevalence of high PVC burden (>5%) and combined high PVC burden and CM than males.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→