MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392788789

Review of cardiac implantable electronic device related infection

2016· article· en· W4392788789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sia YT

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Émile Saliba,1 Emmanuelle Massie,2 Ying Tung Sia3 1Cardiology Department, Hôtel-Dieu de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada; 2Internal Medicine Department, Hôpital Saint Luc, Montréal, QC, Canada; 3Cardiology Department, Hôpital Pierre Boucher, Longueuil, QC, Canada Abstract: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are being used more and more often nowadays. Indications have grown, and access to implantation facilities has increased as well. These devices are often lifesaving, and they can be associated with many other benefits. However, as with any medical procedure, complications can occur. In fact, CIED infection is a prevalent complication that can cause high morbidity and can even lead to death. It is important that most clinicians be familiar with signs and symptoms associated with CIED infection as early diagnosis and treatment lead to better outcomes. Nonetheless, the prevention of such infections remains the cornerstone in the management of CIED-related infections. In this paper, we will review in detail the most significant risk factors that can lead to CIED infection. We will also explore the different available tools that can help decrease the incidence of this complication. In addition, we will summarize the different treatment modalities and the major prevention methods. Keywords: cardiac implantable electronic device, infection, pacemaker, endocarditis

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.375 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→