Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP), particularly at the right ventricular apex, has long been the standard approach for ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemakers. However, RVP has been shown to introduce electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, resulting in adverse remodelling, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure. The deleterious effects of a high RVP burden have been demonstrated in the MOST and DAVID trials, wherein patients with ventricular pacing >40% were identified as being at risk of increased adverse clinical outcomes, such as hospitalization for heart failure and death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–2.44). In patients with baseline ventricular systolic dysfunction and left bundle branch block or a high ventricular pacing burden, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been shown to be superior to RVP in preventing ventricular dilation, hospitalization for heart failure, and death. Both the BLOCK-HF trial, which compared BiVP to RV pacing in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50% and a high pacing burden, and the MADIT-CRT trial, which compared implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy alone to CRT with defibrillator in patients with LVEF ≤30% and QRS duration ≥130ms, showed a reduction in all-cause mortality and heart failure events in the BiVP group (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.60–0.90 and HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52–0.84, respectively). However, approximately one-third of patients do not respond to conventional BiVP. Moreover, the benefits of conventional BiVP have not been consistently shown across all cohorts. To overcome the detrimental effects of RVP and the limitations of conventional BiVP, conduction system pacing (CSP) was introduced. This approach harnesses the His-Purkinje system, thereby delivering stimulation mimicking native ventricular activation. The two primary CSP techniques, His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have demonstrated promise in improving both electrical synchrony and clinical outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".