Mutation Location Effect on Severity of Phenotype During Exercise Testing in Type 1 Long‐QT Syndrome: Impact of Transmembrane and C‐Loop Location
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Targeted mutation site-specific differences have correlated C-loop missense mutations with worse outcomes and increased benefit of beta-blockers in LQT1. This observation has implicated the C-loop region as being mechanistically important in the altered response to sympathetic stimulation known to put patients with LQT1 at risk of syncope and sudden cardiac death. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if there is mutation site-specific response to sympathetic stimulation and beta-blockers using exercise testing. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of LQT1 patients undergoing exercise testing at 3 academic referral centers. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients (age 28 ± 17 years, 59 male) were studied including 34 patients (28%) with C-loop mutations. There were no significant differences in supine, standing, peak exercise and 1-minute recovery QTc duration between patients with C-loop mutations and patients with alternate mutation sites. In 37 patients that underwent testing on and off beta-blockers, beta-blocker use was associated with a significant reduction in supine, standing and peak exercise QTc. This difference was not seen in the small group of patients (7/37) with C-loop mutations. There was no difference in QTc at 1 and 4 minutes into recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Genetically confirmed LQT1 patients in this study cohort with C-loop mutations did not demonstrate the expected increase in QTc in response to exercise, or resultant response to beta-blocker. The apparent increased risk of cardiac events associated with C-loop mutation sites and the marked benefit received from beta-blocker therapy are not reflected by exercise-mediated effects on QTc in this study population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".