SCMR expert consensus statement for cardiovascular magnetic resonance of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a proven imaging modality for informing diagnosis and prognosis, guiding therapeutic decisions, and risk stratifying surgical intervention. Patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) would be expected to derive particular benefit from CMR given high prevalence of cardiomyopathy and arrhythmia. While several guidelines have been published over the last 16 years, it is important to recognize that both the CIED and CMR technologies, as well as our knowledge in MR safety, have evolved rapidly during that period. Given increasing utilization of CIED over the past decades, there is an unmet need to establish a consensus statement that integrates latest evidence concerning MR safety and CIED and CMR technologies. While experienced centers currently perform CMR in CIED patients, broad availability of CMR in this population is lacking, partially due to limited availability of resources for programming devices and appropriate monitoring, but also related to knowledge gaps regarding the risk-benefit ratio of CMR in this growing population. To address the knowledge gaps, this SCMR Expert Consensus Statement integrates consensus guidelines, primary data, and opinions from experts across disparate fields towards the shared goal of informing evidenced-based decision-making regarding the risk-benefit ratio of CMR for patients with CIEDs.
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 | 0.037 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".