Link between Brugada phenocopy and myocardial ischemia: Results from the International Registry on Brugada Phenocopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brugada phenocopies clinical entities that have indistinguishable electrocardiographic (ECG) patterns from true congenital Brugada syndrome. However, they are induced by other clinical circumstances such as myocardial ischemia. The purpose of our study was to examine the clinical features and pathogenesis of ischemia-induced Brugada phenocopy (BrP). METHODS: Data from 17 cases of ischemia-induced BrP were collected from the International Registry (www.brugadaphenocopy.com). Data were extracted from these publications and authors were contacted to provide further insight into each case. RESULTS: Of the patients included in this study, 71% were male. Mean age was 59 ± 11 years (range: 38-76). Type-1 Brugada ECG pattern occurred in 15/17 (88%) of the cases, while a type-2 Brugada ECG pattern was observed in the other 2/17 (12%). In all cases, the Brugada ECG pattern resolved upon correction of the ischemia, indicating ischemia as the inducing circumstance. No arrhythmic events have been detected acutely or during the follow-up. Reported time to resolution ranged from 2 minutes to 5 hours. Provocative challenges using sodium channel blocking agents were performed in 7/17 cases (41%), and all failed to induce a Brugada ECG pattern (BrP Class A). The remaining 10/17 cases (59%) did not undergo provocative testing due to various clinical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial ischemia is a commonly reported etiology of BrP. Importantly, this study found no association between BrP induced by myocardial ischemia and sudden cardiac death or malignant ventricular arrhythmias.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".