MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406947504 · doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2024.12.002

Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation as a Risk Factor For Motor Vehicle Crash

2025· article· en· W4406947504 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John A. Staples, Daniel Daly‐Grafstein, Isaac Robinson, Mayesha Khan, Nathaniel M. Hawkins, Herbert Chan, Shannon Erdelyi, Christian Steinberg, Katie MacLure, Andrew D. Krahn, Jeffrey R. Brubacher

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCrashMotor vehicle crashImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorVehicle accidentRisk factorMedicineAeronauticsMedical emergencyEngineeringInjury preventionPoison controlCardiologyComputer scienceInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Limited empirical evidence informs fitness-to-drive recommendations after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Cohort designs can be deceptive because ICD recipients differ from control individuals and may temporarily cease driving after implantation. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to generate evidence to inform medical driving restrictions after ICD implantation. METHODS: We used population-based data to identify all drivers involved in a serious motor vehicle crash in British Columbia, Canada, from 1997 to 2019. Exposure was defined as ICD implantation in the 6 months before a crash. One analysis used a case-crossover design to control for relatively fixed individual characteristics like driving experience. Another analysis used a responsibility design to account for road exposure (miles of driving per week). Both analyses used logistic regression with adjustment for potential confounders. RESULTS: In the case-crossover analysis of crash-involved ICD recipients, ICD implantation occurred in 212 of 3,299 precrash intervals and in 485 of 6,598 control intervals, suggesting no temporal association between ICD implantation and subsequent crash (6.4% vs 7.4%; adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.71-1.03; P = 0.11). In the analysis of all crash-involved drivers with determinate crash responsibility, 14 of 22 drivers with recent ICD implantation and 532,741 of 1,035,433 drivers without recent ICD implantation were deemed responsible for their crash, suggesting no association between ICD implantation and crash responsibility (crude proportion responsible, 64% vs 51%; aOR: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.94-5.30; P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-month interval after ICD implantation is not associated with increased odds of crash nor with increased likelihood of crash responsibility. Contemporary driving restrictions in the first weeks after ICD implantation appear to adequately mitigate the potential increase in crash risk.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.434 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC. Clinical electrophysiologySame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207