Safety of Sports for Patients with Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (SPORT S-ICD): study rationale and protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent studies suggest that participation in recreational and even competitive sports is generally safe for patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, these studies included only patients with implanted transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). Nowadays, subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is a safe and effective alternative and is increasingly implanted in younger ICD candidates. Data on the safety of sport participation for patients with implanted S-ICD systems is urgently needed. Objectives: The goal of the study is to quantify the risks (or determine the safety) of sports participation for athletes with an S-ICD, which will guide shared decision making for athletes requiring an ICD and/or wishing to return to sports after implantation. Methods: The SPORT S-ICD (Sports for Patients with Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator) study is an international, multicenter, prospective, noninterventional, observational study, designed specifically to collect data on the safety of sports participation among patients with implanted S-ICD systems who regularly engage in sports activities. Results: A total of 450 patients will undergo baseline assessment including baseline characteristics, indication for S-ICD implantation, arrhythmic history, S-ICD data and programming, and data regarding sports activities. LATITUDE Home Monitoring information will be regularly transferred to the study coordinator for analysis. Conclusion: The results of the study will aid in shaping clinical decision making, and if the tested hypothesis will be proven, it will allow the safe continuation of sports for patients with an implanted S-ICD.
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 | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.007 |
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".