T<sub>peak</sub>‐T<sub>end</sub>, T<sub>peak</sub>‐T<sub>end</sub>/<scp>QT</scp> ratio and T<sub>peak</sub>‐T<sub>end</sub> dispersion for risk stratification in Brugada Syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Brugada syndrome is an ion channelopathy that predisposes affected subjects to ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation ( VT / VF ), potentially leading to sudden cardiac death (SCD). T peak ‐T end intervals, (T peak ‐T end )/ QT ratio and T peak ‐T end dispersion have been proposed for risk stratification, but their predictive values in Brugada syndrome have been challenged recently. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted to examine their values in predicting arrhythmic and mortality outcomes in Brugada Syndrome. PubMed and Embase databases were searched until 1 May 2018, identifying 29 and 57 studies. Results Nine studies involving 1740 subjects (mean age 45 years old, 80% male, mean follow‐up duration was 68 ± 27 months) were included. The mean T peak ‐T end interval was 98.9 ms (95% CI : 90.5‐107.2 ms) for patients with adverse events (ventricular arrhythmias or SCD) compared to 87.7 ms (95% CI : 80.5‐94.9 ms) for those without such events, with a mean difference of 11.9 ms (95% CI : 3.6‐20.2 ms, P = 0.005; I 2 = 86%). Higher (T peak ‐T end )/ QT ratios (mean difference = 0.019, 95% CI : 0.003‐0.036, P = 0.024; I 2 = 74%) and T peak ‐T end dispersion (mean difference = 7.8 ms, 95% CI : 2.1‐13.4 ms, P = 0.007; I 2 = 80%) were observed for the event‐positive group. Conclusion T peak ‐T end interval, (T peak ‐T end )/ QT ratio and T peak ‐T end dispersion were higher in high‐risk than low‐risk Brugada subjects, and thus offer incremental value for risk stratification.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it