MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148234684 · doi:10.1161/circep.110.961094

The QT and Corrected QT Interval in Recovery After Exercise in Children

2011· article· en· W2148234684 on OpenAlexaff
Wouter R. Berger, Robert M. Gow, S. Kamberi, Michael Cheung, Katherine R. Smith, Andrew M. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionQT intervalMedicineHeart rateIntraclass correlationRepolarizationCardiologyLong QT syndromeAnesthesiaInternal medicinePhysical therapyBlood pressureElectrophysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prolongation of the QT interval after exercise can be used to help diagnose long-QT syndrome, especially when the resting QT interval is borderline. The aim of this study was to determine the normal ranges for QT and corrected QT in the recovery phase after exercise in children. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-four volunteer boys and girls aged 8 to < 17 years without any history of heart disease underwent exercise testing and had a 12-lead ECG performed in the supine position for 10 minutes of recovery. The QT was measured using a standardized tangent method, with the baseline defined as the Q-Q line. The recovery QT was maximally short at 1 minute of recovery in 93 of 94 children then lengthened and stabilized at 4 to 5 minutes recovery. The recovery QT lengthens as heart rate decreases in an approximately linear fashion with a mean increase of 15 ms per 10-beat decrease in heart rate. The 98 th percentiles for the corrected QT using the Bazett formula during minutes 4 to 6 in recovery were from 482 to 491 ms. There was excellent intraobserver and interobserver reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.95 and 0.88, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial individual variability of the normal repolarization process in the postexercise recovery period in children. The study provides a reference for normal responses for similar populations using a specific measurement protocol that can be easily applied.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207