MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6954797065 · doi:10.57945/manara.23937660

The downside of cardiac devices insertion

2023· other· en· W6954797065 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQatar National Library · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricleRegurgitation (circulation)ComplicationTricuspid valveCardiac pacemakerCardiac function curve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, there has been a significant worldwide increase in the implantation of cardiac devices such as permanent pacemakers, cardiac defibrillators, and biventricular pacemakers, and this trend is likely to continue because of increasing life expectancy. One potential complication following the implantation of such devices is tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR), in which the tricuspid valve does not close properly, causing blood to leak back into the right ventricle of the heart. This is thought to be due to interference of the valve's function by the permanent endocardial leads that control the implanted devices. There is, however, little information about the prevalence of TR, or about the exact mechanisms by which it occurs. Hisham Dokainish of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, and colleagues are therefore performing a prospective study to determine how prevalent TR is after pacemaker lead insertion, its potential underlying mechanisms, and whether it is of any clinical importance to cardiac patients . So far, the researchers have recruited 300 patients from centres in Canada and Europe. Of these, 154 had a permanent pacemaker implanted, 102 received implantable cardiac defibrillators, and 44 received biventricular pacemakers. The researchers are currently documenting the percentage of time for which each patient is being paced, and the position of the leads attached to their implants, among other clinical factors. Echocardiography will be performed at a mean of one year post-pacemaker insertion to assess whether there is an increase in TR after lead implantation. Given that patient follow-up after pacemaker insertion is still ongoing, it remains unclear whether permanent implantation of a cardiac device increases the risk of TR. The researchers believe that their study should help to answer these questions as patient follow-up is completed. However, if TR is indeed found to be associated with device implantation, this could have a major impact on how these procedures are performed, and could also provide a rationale for developing less invasive treatments for patients with heart rhythm disorders. “Patient follow-up is projected to be complete by end of March 2016,” says Dokainish. “If TR is indeed shown to increase following lead implantation post-pacemaker insertion, and if in some patients the TR is severe and significantly affecting clinical symptoms, corrective surgery could be considered.”Other InformationPublished in: QScience.com Highlights, Published by Nature Research for Hamad bin Khalifa University Press (HBKU Press) License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQatar National LibraryFrench-language works237,207