MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789597832 · doi:10.14740/jocmr3338w

Impact of Drug Induced Long QT Syndrome: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2789597832 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karuppiah Arunachalam, Seetha Lakshmanan, Abhishek Maan, Narendra Kumar, Paari Dominic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQT intervalLong QT syndromeInternal medicineCardiologySudden cardiac deathConcomitantDrugPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Drug induced long QT syndrome is quite common in daily clinical practice but its impact is unknown. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE databases (until May 2, 2017) were searched to identify studies reporting drug induced long QT syndrome and followed the PRISMA guidelines. The main outcomes measured in these studies were QTc prolongation, ventricular arrhythmias, torsade de pointes (TdP) and death. RESULTS: Out of 176 non-duplicate reports, 36 studies satisfied inclusion criteria and provided data on patients exposed to drugs that can potentially cause long QT. Totally, 14,756 patients were exposed and 930 patients (6.3%) were found to have QTc prolongation. The number of males was 6,400 and females were 5,723 patients. The mean age of the patients was 43.8 ± 9.36 years. Ventricular arrhythmias were found in 379 patients (2.6%), 26 patients were found to have premature atrial contractions (PACs) and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). TdP was found in 49 patients (0.33 %), sudden cardiac death (SCD) was found in five patients and 586 patients were found to have all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Around 6% of patients have risk of QT prolongation when exposed but only 0.3% developed TdP and 2.6% developed ventricular arrhythmias. Risk of developing arrhythmias is higher with concomitant use of multiple QT prolonging drugs.

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 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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.623
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207