Diagnosis of Unexplained Cardiac Arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest with preserved left ventricular function may be caused by uncommon genetic conditions. Although these may be evident on the ECG, long-term monitoring or provocative testing is often necessary to unmask latent primary electrical disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with unexplained cardiac arrest and no evident cardiac disease (normal left ventricular function, coronary arteries, and resting corrected QT) underwent pharmacological challenge with adrenaline and procainamide infusions to unmask subclinical primary electrical disease. Family members underwent noninvasive screening and directed provocative testing on the basis of findings in the proband. Eighteen patients (mean+/-SD age, 41+/-17 years; 11 female) with unexplained cardiac arrest were assessed. The final diagnosis was catecholaminergic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) in 10 patients (56%), Brugada syndrome in 2 patients (11%), and unexplained (idiopathic ventricular fibrillation) in 6 patients (33%). Of 55 family members (mean+/-SD age, 27+/-17 years; 33 female), 9 additional affected family members were detected from 2 families, with a single Brugada syndrome patient and 8 CPVT patients. CONCLUSIONS: Provocative testing with adrenaline and procainamide infusions is useful in unmasking the etiology of apparent unexplained cardiac arrest. This approach helps to diagnose primary electrical disease, such as CPVT and Brugada syndrome, and provides the opportunity for therapeutic intervention in identified, asymptomatic family members who harbor the same disease.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".