MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403714302 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2024.10.007

Patient Preferences in Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy (ARVC) Screening and ICD Implantation: Canadian ARVC Registry Substudy

2024· article· en· W4403714302 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sandra Carroll, Daryl Pullman, Martin Gardner, Andrew D. Krahn, Jeff S. Healey

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of NewfoundlandMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyCardiomyopathyInternal medicineHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is typically diagnosed following an arrhythmic event or during screening after a family member experiences sudden cardiac death. Implantation of a defibrillator (ICD) improves survival but can be associated with morbidity and risks, an important consideration within a shared decision-making context. This study examined patient decisional needs and preferences surrounding ARVC screening and prophylactic ICD implantation. Methods: This Canadian ARVC registry substudy included 20 new patients and/or families offered ARVC screening (the screen group), and 27 diagnosed ARVC patients who were offered an ICD. Measures included the following: the Decisional Conflict Scale; preference and benefit-risk visual analogue scales; the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36); and exercise restriction. Descriptive analysis was employed, and results are reported as mean (standard deviation) or proportions. Results: ICD patients reported having lower decisional conflict scores-19.6 (13.6) compared to the screen group patients-33.1 (32.2). The visual analogue scale results showed lower benefit and risk clarity scores for screen group patients-6.6 (3.6)-compared to those offered ICD implantation-7.4 (2.6). More screen group patients (55%) reported restricting exercise than did ICD patients (30%). In both groups, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary scores were higher than population norms-50 (standard deviation 10): the screen group, 52.0 (8.8); the ICD group, 54.1 (7.4), and the Mental Component Summary scores were slightly lower-the screen group, 47.7 (10.8); the ICD group, 49.7 (8.9). Conclusions: Patients undergoing ARVC screening reported greater decisional conflict and lower benefit and risk clarity compared to patients diagnosed with ARVC who were offered an ICD. Screen group patients were more restrictive in their exercise. Understanding patient preferences and needs during ARVC screening and ICD candidacy can assist in improving decision support with patients and families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207