MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610721756 · doi:10.1016/j.joa.2017.04.004

Criteria for short QT interval based on a new QT‐heart rate adjustment formula

2017· article· en· W2610721756 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Arrhythmia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQT intervalPercentileMedicineCardiologyAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineInterval (graph theory)StatisticsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A short QT interval, within which an increased risk for atrial fibrillation and/or fatal cardiac arrhythmias occurs, has been difficult to define. METHODS: The lower percentiles of a new QTc formula were determined, using a precise mathematical fitting of the QT-heart rate relationship from the ECGs of 13,600 individuals from the NHANES II and III surveys. RESULTS: The QTc interval for persons in the lower fifth percentile, second (2.5th) percentile and first percentile, were calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the new spline formula, a short QTc is defined at the first percentile, and is less than 380 ms in both men and women.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.309 · 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