Corrected QT Intervals in Newly Admitted Geriatric Psychiatric Patients: An Examination of Risk Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence of prolonged corrected QT (QTc) intervals in a population of geriatric psychiatry inpatients. Our secondary objective was to examine the associations between prolonged QTc intervals and risk factors identified as determinants in prolonging the QTc interval. METHODS: We identified all geriatric patients (aged 60 years and older) who were admitted to the geriatric program of our facility between May 1, 2003, and December 31, 2003. Those patients with a heart rate QTc interval calculated on the electrocardiogram (ECG) were eligible for the study. We used Bazett's formula to calculate the QTc interval. We defined a priori that a prolonged QTc interval would be 450 ms and 460 ms for men and women, respectively. We collected data on demographic variables such as weight, sex, age, and Axis I and III diagnoses, as well as on recognized risk factors for prolonged QTc interval. We used Student's t tests to conduct parametric analysis on continuous variables, and chi-square to test categorical variables for independence. RESULTS: During the study period, 88 patients were admitted to the geriatric division of Riverview Hospital. Of these patients, 34 men and 42 women had calculated QTc intervals on their ECG and therefore made up the study population. Our data show that 29.4% of men and 21.4% of women had prolonged QTc intervals. However, neither diagnostic nor medicinal risk factors were found to be associated with an increased incidence of prolonged QTc interval in this patient population. CONCLUSION: The preliminary findings of this study suggest that in this patient population the QTc interval may not be influenced by recognized risk factors to the same extent as observed in the adult population. These results warrant confirmation by a larger, prospectively designed study.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".