Association Between QT-Interval Components and Sudden Cardiac Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several reports have demonstrated that prolongation of the QT interval is associated with sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, it is unknown whether any of the components within the QT interval are responsible for its association with SCD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the association of the individual QT-interval components (R-wave onset to R-peak, R-peak to R-wave end, ST-segment, T-wave onset to T-peak, and T-peak to T-wave end) with SCD in 12 241 participants (54±5.7 years; 26% black; 55% women) from the ARIC study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The QT interval and its components were measured at baseline (1987-1989) from 12-lead ECGs. SCD cases were adjudicated by a group of physicians through December 31, 2012. During a median follow-up of 23.6 years, a total of 346 cases of SCD were identified. Although prolongation of the QT interval was associated with a 49% increased risk of SCD (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.18), only the T-wave onset to T-peak component (per 1-SD increase: hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.34) was associated with SCD and not any of the other components in separate models. When all of the QT-interval components were included in the same model, T-wave onset to T-peak remained the strongest predictor of SCD (per 1-SD increase: hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.37). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of SCD with the QT interval is driven by prolongation of the T-wave onset to T-peak component. This suggests that shifting the focus from the overall QT interval to its individual components will refine SCD prediction in the community.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".