P3816New electrocardiographic risk score for the prediction of ventricular fibrillation in Brugada type 1 ECG pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Introduction: There is currently no accurate and reliable tool to quantify the risk of ventricular fibrillation (VF) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada (Br) type 1 electrocardiographic (ECG) pattern. Purpose: To design a VF risk score based on ECG analysis in asymptomatic Br type 1 patients by validating the independence of known ECG risk factors and estimating their relative weight in the prediction process. Method: In a multicenter international study, we retrospectively analyzed data from 137 patients (mean age 46.3±13.4, 122 males: 89.1%) with Br type 1 pattern, including 32 individual from published case reports. 60 patients (43.80%) presented VF or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VF group). A systematic review of the literature identified 10 ECG criteria for multivariate analysis. We performed a multivariate analysis with logistic regression to build a risk prediction model. The consistency of this model was verified by comparing to a Cox model and to another logistic model using the total number of ECG criteria.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".