Association of QT dispersion with mortality and arrhythmic events—A meta‐analysis of observational studies
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
BACKGROUND: The risk stratification of coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or heart failure (HF) patients with easily measured electrocardiographic markers is of clinical importance. The aim of this meta-analysis is to indicate whether increased QT dispersion (QTd) is associated with fatal and nonfatal outcomes in patients with CHD and/or HF. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and Cochrane databases without restrictions until August 15, 2018 using the keyword "QT dispersion". Studies including data on the association between QTd and all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD) or arrhythmic events in patients with HF and/or CHD were classified as eligible. RESULTS: In the analysis including patients with CHD and/or HF, we found that QTd did not differ significantly in patients with SCD compared to no SCD patients while QTd was significantly greater in the group of all-cause mortality patients and in patients who experienced a sustained ventricular arrhythmia. Subgroup analysis showed that in myocardial infarction studies, QTd was significantly higher in patients with an arrhythmic event compared to arrhythmic event-free patients while a nonsignificant difference was found in QTd in patients who died from any cause compared to survivors. Similarly, in HF patients, the QTd was significantly greater in patients with an arrhythmic event while a nonsignificant difference was found regarding all-cause mortality and SCD outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: QTd has a prognostic role for stratifying myocardial infarction or HF patients who are at higher risk of arrhythmic events. However, no prognostic role was found regarding all-cause mortality or SCD in this patient population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it