Exercise and β-blocker therapy recommendations for inherited arrhythmogenic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of individuals with long QT syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy may involve exercise restriction and/or β-blocker therapy. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the practices of a group of paediatric electrophysiologists regarding the management of genotype-positive/phenotype-positive and genotype-positive/phenotype-negative individuals with these conditions. METHOD: An online survey was circulated to members of the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society in May, 2014. The survey included questions addressing the respondents' approach regarding exercise recommendations and prescription of β-blocker therapy. RESULTS: A total of 45 cardiologists completed the survey. The majority of respondents restricted symptomatic patients from competitive sports; however, only approximately half restricted phenotype-negative mutation carriers from this level of activity. Recommendations were less consistent regarding other types of activities. A trend was identified regarding physician physical activity and exercise recommendations for phenotype-negative mutation carriers. Less-active physicians were more likely to restrict exercise. β-blocker therapy was discussed by the majority of respondents for symptomatic patients and a significant number of asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: Exercise restriction for patients with long QT syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy varies based on several factors including phenotype, type of exercise, guidelines referred to, and physicians' own level of activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".