Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society position paper on implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Heart Rhythm Society in conjunction with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society is committed to the promotion of evidence-based practice in Canada. Since the last Canadian guidelines on the management of sudden cardiac death were published in 2000, several well-conducted clinical trials evaluating the implantable cardioverter defibrillator have been completed and published. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society Council has granted permission to review and update guidelines for the indications for implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Furthermore, data are emerging on the potential benefits of biventricular pacing therapy (cardiac resynchronization) for heart failure; recommendations for the use of this therapy have been included in the present paper. Ethical considerations and the economic implications of these recommendations are also included. Canada's heart rhythm specialists, represented by the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society, have been joined by two heart failure specialists, a medical ethicist and an economist, to develop the present position paper. Members of the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society participated in the discussion of these recommendations in open forum meetings and by electronic communication.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".