MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7108078574 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17770783

Comparative Supply Chain Risk Management for Cardiovascular Devices (Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators): FDA, Health Canada, and EMA Approaches

2025· article· W7108078574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditFood and drug administrationConformity assessmentRisk managementHeart RhythmEuropean unionSupply chainConformity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) is a high-risk, life-sustaining cardiovascular device that monitors heart rhythm and delivers electrical therapy to treat ventricular arrhythmias. Due to its implantable design and direct interaction with cardiac tissue, the ICD is classified as a high-risk device under most global regulatory frameworks (Bhanushali et al., 2025). This study examines the regulatory strategies of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, and the European Union (EU) Medical Device Regulation (MDR). The objective is to identify how these authorities classify ICDs, evaluate pre-market evidence, and manage post-market oversight. The analysis highlights key similarities such as the adoption of risk-based classification systems and reliance on international standards like ISO 13485 (Quality Management Systems for Medical Devices) and ISO 10993 (Biological evaluation of medical devices) as well as significant differences in conformity assessment models and supplier audit structures (Bhanushali et al., 2025).

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→