Derivation and Validation of a Simple Exercise-Based Algorithm for Prediction of Genetic Testing in Relatives of LQTS Probands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic testing can diagnose long-QT syndrome (LQTS) in asymptomatic relatives of patients with an identified mutation; however, it is costly and subject to availability. The accuracy of a simple algorithm that incorporates resting and exercise ECG parameters for screening LQTS in asymptomatic relatives was evaluated, with genetic testing as the gold standard. METHODS AND RESULTS: Asymptomatic first-degree relatives of genetically characterized probands were recruited from 5 centers. QT intervals were measured at rest, during exercise, and during recovery. Receiver operating characteristics were used to establish optimal cutoffs. An algorithm for identifying LQTS carriers was developed in a derivation cohort and validated in an independent cohort. The derivation cohort consisted of 69 relatives (28 with LQT1, 20 with LQT2, and 21 noncarriers). Mean age was 35±18 years, and resting corrected QT interval (QTc) was 466±39 ms. Abnormal resting QTc (females ≥480 ms; males ≥470 ms) was 100% specific for gene carrier status, but was observed in only 48% of patients; however, mutations were observed in 68% and 42% of patients with a borderline or normal resting QTc, respectively. Among these patients, 4-minute recovery QTc ≥445 ms correctly restratified 22 of 25 patients as having LQTS and 19 of 21 patients as being noncarriers. The combination of resting and 4-minute recovery QTc in a screening algorithm yielded a sensitivity of 0.94 and specificity of 0.90 for detecting LQTS carriers. When applied to the validation cohort (n=152; 58 with LQT1, 61 with LQT2, and 33 noncarriers; QTc=443±47 ms), sensitivity was 0.92 and specificity was 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: A simple algorithm that incorporates resting and exercise-recovery QTc is useful in identifying LQTS in asymptomatic relatives.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".