Categorization and theoretical comparison of quantitative methods for assessing QT/RR hysteresis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the human electrocardiogram, there is a lag of adaptation of the QT interval to heart rate changes, usually termed QT/RR hysteresis (QT-hys). Subject-specific quantifiers of QT-hys have been proposed as potential biomarkers, but there is no consensus on the choice of the quantifier. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify original articles reporting quantifiers of repolarization hysteresis from the surface ECG in humans. RESULTS: Sixty articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Reported biomarkers were grouped under four categories. A simple mathematical model of QT/RR loop was used to illustrate differences between the methods. Category I quantifiers use direct measurement of QT time course of adaptation. They are limited to conditions where RR intervals are under strict control. Category IIa and IIb quantifiers compare QT responses during consecutive heart rate acceleration and deceleration. They are relevant when a QT/RR loop is observed, typically during exercise and recovery, but are not robust to protocol variations. Category III quantifiers evaluate the optimum RR memory in dynamic QT/RR relationship modeling. They estimate an intrinsic memory parameter independent from the nature of RR changes, but their reliability remains to be confirmed when multiple memory parameters are estimated. Promising approaches include the differentiation of short-term and long-term memory and adaptive estimation of memory parameters. CONCLUSION: Model-based approaches to QT-hys assessment appear to be the most versatile, as they allow separate quantification of QT/RR dependency and QT-hys, and can be applied to a wide range of experimental settings.
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 | 0.059 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".