Do patients with electrocardiographic Brugada type 1 pattern have associated right bundle branch block? A comparative vectorcardiographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Previous studies have reported right bundle branch block in Brugada syndrome. Subsequent analysis of electrocardiograms (ECGs) found one-third of cases classified as right bundle branch block did not meet criteria of a wide final S wave in the left leads. We aimed to study the role of the vectorcardiogram to characterize Brugada type 1 ECG pattern. METHODS AND RESULTS: Compare Frank-method vectorcardiogram in 11 patients with Brugada type 1 ECG pattern (BrS group) with vectorcardiogram of 20 healthy individuals with ECGs depicting incomplete right bundle branch block (IRBBB group) and 12 patients with complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB group). Initial 10-20 ms vector of the QRS loop in the horizontal plane (HP): BrS and IRBBB groups: Vector heading anterior and leftward. CRBBB group: Vector directed anterior and rightward. Right end conduction delay of the QRS loop: BrS group: Upper right quadrant of the frontal plane, right posterior quadrant of the HP. IRBBB group: Upper right quadrant of the frontal plane (30%) and right anterior quadrant of the HP (90%). CRBBB group: Upper right quadrant on the frontal plane (30%); all cases in the right anterior quadrant of the HP. 0 point (onset of QRS loop) and J point (end of QRS loop) relationship: BrS group: Not coincidental. IRBBB and CRBBB groups: Coincidental. T loop morphology, size, and appearance: BrS group: Circular, with symmetrical afferent and efferent limbs in 10 cases (90%). IRBBB and CRBBB groups: Elliptical or linear with slow inscription of efferent limb and rapid inscription of afferent limb. CONCLUSIONS: Vectorcardiograms in patients with Brugada type 1 ECG pattern have distinctive characteristics compared with healthy individuals with incomplete and CRBBB. These differences relate to the spatial location of the end conduction delay (right superior and posterior quadrant in the BrS group) and the morphology, size, and velocity of inscription of afferent and efferent limbs of the T loop (circular, small, of symmetrical limbs) and with a 1:1 length/width ratio.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".