Estimation of the QT-RR relation: trade-off between goodness-of-fit and extrapolation accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correction of the QT interval in the ECG for changes in heart rate (RR interval) is needed to compare groups of patients and assess the risk of sudden cardiac death. The QTc represents the QT interval at 60 bpm, although most patients typically have a faster heart rate, thus requiring extrapolation of the QT-RR relationship. OBJECTIVE: This paper investigates the ability of QT-RR models with increasing number of parameters to fit beat-to-beat variations in the QT interval and provide a reliable estimate of the QTc. APPROACH: One-, two- and three-parameter functions generalising the Bazett and Fridericia formulas were used in combination with hysteresis reduction (memory) obtained by time-averaging the history of RR intervals with exponentially-decaying weights. In normal men and women datasets of Holter recordings in normal subjects (24 h monitoring), two measures were computed for each model: the root mean square error (RMSE) of fitting and the difference between the estimated QTc and a reference QTc obtained by collecting data points around RR = 1000 ms. MAIN RESULTS: The two- and three-parameter functions all gave similar low RMSE with uncorrelated residues. An optimal memory parameter was found that still minimized the RMSE and could be used for all functions and subjects. This reduction in RMSE resulted from changes in the parameters linked to the increased steepness of the QT-RR relation after hysteresis reduction. At optimal memory, the two and three-parameter models provided poorer prediction of the QTc as compared to the Fridericia's model in subjects with fast heart rates, since accurate representation of the steeper QT-RR relation worsened the extrapolation that was then needed to determine the QTc. SIGNIFICANCE: As a result, among all models investigated, the Fridericia formulation offered the best trade-off for QTc prediction robust to memory and fast heart rates.
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 | 0.015 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".