High-Density Substrate Mapping in Brugada Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two principal mechanisms are thought to be responsible for Brugada syndrome (BS): (1) right ventricular (RV) conduction delay and (2) RV subepicardial action potential shortening. This in vivo high-density mapping study evaluated the conduction and repolarization properties of the RV in BS subjects. METHODS AND RESULTS: A noncontact mapping array was positioned in the RV of 18 BS patients and 20 controls. Using a standard S(1)-S(2) protocol, restitution curves of local activation time and activation recovery interval were constructed to determine local maximal restitution slopes. Significant regional conduction delays in the anterolateral free wall of the RV outflow tract of BS patients were identified. The mean increase in delay was 3-fold greater in this region than in control (P=0<0.001). Local activation gradient was also maximally reduced in this area: 0.33+/-0.1 (mean+/-SD) mm/ms in BS patients versus 0.51+/-0.15 mm/ms in controls (P<0.0005). The uniformity of wavefront propagation as measured by the square of the correlation coefficient, r(2), was greater in BS patients versus controls (0.94+/-0.04 versus 0.89+/-0.09 [mean+/-SD]; P<0.05). The odds ratio of BS hearts having any RV segment with maximal restitution slope >1 was 3.86 versus controls. Five episodes of provoked ventricular tachycardia arose from wave breaks originating from RV outflow tract slow-conduction zones in 5 BS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Marked regional endocardial conduction delay and heterogeneities in repolarization exist in BS. Wave break in areas of maximal conduction delay appears to be critical in the initiation and maintenance of ventricular tachycardia. These data indicate that further studies of mapping BS to identify slow-conduction zones should be considered to determine their role in spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".