Base of the triangle to determine a Brugada electrocardiogram pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Dr Sugrue for raising the important point about the different metrics used to assess the validity of diagnostic tests and their interpretation.1 We also thank the Editor for the opportunity to complement our manuscript with the likelihood ratios corresponding to the different electrocardiographic criteria we have evaluated.2 In the table we provide with the likelihood ratios for positive results (LR+) and for negative results (LR−) and their 95% confidence intervals for the different ECG criteria (Table 1). Likelihood ratios (and their 95% confidence interval) corresponding to the different electrocardiographic criteria evaluated in leads V1–V2 Likelihood ratios (and their 95% confidence interval) corresponding to the different electrocardiographic criteria evaluated in leads V1–V2 These results reinforce the value of the duration of the base of the triangle at 5 mm from r′-wave ≥160 ms (4 mm) as useful clinical criteria to differentiate Type-2 Brugada pattern from r′-wave in leads V1/V2 in healthy athletes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
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".