Brugada phenocopy due to hypokalemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor, We read with interest the illustrative case of Swe and Dogar, recently published in your journal.[1] They presented a case of a patient with hypokalemia depicting a surface 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) of Brugada ECG pattern which immediately resolved upon correction of electrolyte imbalance. The case presented by the authors refers to a possible Brugada phenocopy (BrP).[2] BrPs are clinical entities characterized by ECG patterns identical to those of true Brugada syndrome (BrS) but are elicited by various other underlying conditions.[23] Differentiation between the two conditions is of utmost importance as the treatment recommendations of BrP differ from BrS and misdiagnosis may lead to significant morbidity and mortality. While individuals with BrS are at risk of sudden cardiac death, and may be candidates for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, the clinical implications of BrP remain unknown. However, the BrP International Registry[4] reveals that prognosis of BrP seems to be associated with the underlying condition rather than with the presence of polymorphic ventricular arrhythmias as it occurs with true BrS. Diagnosis of BrP relies on a series of electrocardiographic and clinical characteristics that distinguish the condition from BrS [Table 1].[2] Perhaps the most important component in the reliable distinction between BrS and BrP is the use of a sodium channel blocking agent.Table 1: Brugada phenocopy systematic diagnostic criteria (reproduced with permission)According to the morphological classification of BrP,[2] the case presented by Swe and Dogar[1] represents a BrP type 1, class B (as the sodium channel blocker test has not been performed). We make a call for researchers to use the proposed terminology (BrP) to identify cases like the one presented here. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".