Evaluation of Heart Rhythm Variability and Arrhythmia in Children with Systemic and Localized Scleroderma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate possible disturbances in autonomic regulation and cardiac arrhythmias in children with localized and systemic scleroderma. METHODS: There were 40 children included in the study: 20 with systemic and 20 with localized scleroderma. The control group comprised 20 healthy children. RESULTS: In 24-hour Holter recording, the average rate of sinus rhythm was significantly higher in the groups with systemic and localized scleroderma than in the control group, but there was no significant difference between them. The variability of heart rhythm in both groups was significantly decreased. In the group with systemic scleroderma, single supraventricular ectopic beats were observed in 20% and runs were seen in 40% of patients. In the group with localized scleroderma, supraventricular single ectopic beats occurred in 35% of patients and runs in 45% of those studied. Ventricular arrhythmia occurred in 2 children with systemic scleroderma, but in 1 child, it was complex. CONCLUSION: The most frequent cardiac arrhythmias in both types of scleroderma in children were of supraventricular origin, whereas ventricular arrhythmias did not occur very often. There were no significant differences in autonomic disturbances manifesting as a higher heart rate and decreased heart rate variability between localized and systemic scleroderma.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".