Addressing Complications in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Guideline to Prevention of CIED Infection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are vital for managing arrhythmias but carry a notable risk of infection, which increases patient morbidity, mortality, and healthcare burden. This review examines current evidence on risk factors and preventive strategies for CIEDI. Methods: A structured search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using terms such as “CIED,” “infection,” “pacemaker,” “ICD,” “infection prevention,” “biofilm,” “antibiotic prophylaxis,” and “antibiotic-eluting envelope.” Study selection followed PRISMA guidelines. Results: For well-established topics, recommendations are based on high-quality evidence from the literature. In areas with limited CIED-specific data, evidence from related surgical fields was considered, and expert consensus was used to guide recommendations. Conclusions: This review offers practical guidance for clinicians on CIED infection prevention, addressing gaps not previously covered in existing guidelines.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it