Steeper restitution slopes across right ventricular endocardium in patients with cardiomyopathy at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steep action potential duration (APD) restitution slopes (>1) and spatial APD restitution heterogeneity provide the substrate for ventricular fibrillation in computational models and experimental studies. Their relationship to ventricular arrhythmia vulnerability in human cardiomyopathy has not been defined. Patients with cardiomyopathy [left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <40%] and no history of ventricular arrhythmias underwent risk stratification with programmed electrical stimulation or T wave alternans (TWA). Low-risk patients (n = 10) had no inducible ventricular tachycardia (VT) or negative TWA, while high-risk patients (n = 8) had inducible VT or positive TWA. Activation recovery interval (ARI) restitution slopes were measured simultaneously from 10 right ventricular (RV) endocardial sites during an S1-S2 pacing protocol. ARI restitution slope heterogeneity was defined as the coefficient of variation of slopes. Mean ARI restitution slope was significantly steeper in the high-risk group compared with the low-risk group [1.16 (SD 0.31) vs. 0.59 (SD 0.19), P = 0.0002]. The proportion of endocardial recording sites with a slope >1 was significantly larger in the high-risk patients [47% (SD 35) vs. 13% (SD 21), P = 0.022]. Spatial heterogeneity of ARI restitution slopes was similar between the two groups [29% (SD 16) vs. 39% (SD 34), P = 0.48]. There was an inverse linear relationship between the ARI restitution slope and the minimum diastolic interval (P < 0.001). In cardiomyopathic patients at high risk of ventricular arrhythmias, ARI restitution slopes along the RV endocardium are steeper, but restitution slope heterogeneity is similar compared with those at low risk. Steeper ARI restitution slopes may increase the propensity for ventricular arrhythmias in patients with impaired left ventricular function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".