2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronisation therapy: Statement of endorsement by the NVVC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has updated its guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronisation. As the majority are class II recommendations (61%) and based on expert opinion (59%), a critical appraisal for the Dutch situation was warranted. A working group has been established, consisting of specialists in cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, geriatrics, allied professionals in cardiac pacing, and patient organisations with support from the Knowledge Institute of the Dutch Association of Medical Specialists. They assessed the evidence leading to the recommendations and the suitability for daily Dutch practice. Several recommendations have been amended or omitted altogether if a conflicting Dutch guideline has recently been published, such as a guideline on performing magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. The recent Dutch guideline on implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy has recommended implanting cardiac resynchronisation therapy devices without a defibrillator function. Shared decision making has received a more prominent role in the ESC guidelines and is discussed in more detail in this document. The recommendations given in this document are intended for health care professionals involved in the care of patients with an indication for cardiac pacing and are approved by the participating professional societies and the patient organisation Harteraad.
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".