Prognosis, risk stratification, and management of asymptomatic individuals with Brugada syndrome: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a primary electrical disease associated with increased risk of sudden cardiac death due to polymorphic ventricular arrhythmias. The prognosis, risk stratification, and management of asymptomatic individuals remain the most controversial issues in BrS. Furthermore, the decision to manage asymptomatic patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator should be made after weighing the potential individual risk of future arrhythmic events against the risk of complications associated with the implant and follow-up of patients living with such devices, and the accompanying impairment of the quality of life. Several clinical, electrocardiographic, and electrophysiological markers have been proposed for risk stratification of subjects with BrS phenotype, but the majority have not yet been tested in a prospective manner in asymptomatic individuals. Recent data suggest that current risk factors are insufficient and cannot accurately predict sudden cardiac death events in this setting. This systematic review aims to discuss contemporary data regarding prognosis, risk stratification, and management of asymptomatic individuals with diagnosis of Brugada electrocardiogram pattern and to delineate the therapeutic approach in such cases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".