ArticleMedical research archives2025
Strategies and Considerations for Safe Reinforcement Learning in Programming Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.
Article in Medical research archives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Cardiac Neuromodulation: Mechanisms, Applications, and Pathways to Clinical Translation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Diagnostics, Monitoring, and Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices, such as pacemakers and implantable defibrillators, represents a promising domain for the application of automated learning systems. These systems, leveraging a type of artificial intelligence called reinforcement learning, have the potential to personalize medical treatment by adapting device settings based on an individual's physiological responses. At the core of these self-learning algorithms is the principle of balancing exploration and exploitation. Exploitation refers to the selection of device programming settings previously demonstrated to provide clinical benefit, while exploration refers to the real-time search for adjustments to device programming that could provide an improvement in clinical outcomes for each individual. Exploration is a critical component of the reinforcement learning algorithm, and provides the opportunity to identify settings that could directly benefit individual patients. However, unconstrained exploration poses risks, as an automated change in certain settings may lead to adverse clinical outcomes. To mitigate these risks, several strategies have been proposed to ensure that algorithm-driven programming changes achieve the desired level of individualized optimization without compromising patient safety. In this review, we examine the existing literature on safe reinforcement learning algorithms in automated systems and discuss their potential application to the programming of cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.