Sources of QTc variability: Implications for effective ECG monitoring in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmaceuticals that prolong ventricular repolarization may be proarrhythmic in susceptible patients. While this fact is well recognized, schemes for sequential QTc interval monitoring in patients receiving QT-prolonging drugs are frequently overlooked or, if implemented, underutilized in clinical practice. There are several reasons for this gap in day-to-day clinical practice. One of these is the perception that serially measured QTc intervals are subject to substantial variability that hampers the distinction between potential proarrhythmic signs and other sources of QTc variability. This review shows that substantial part of the QTc variability can be avoided if more accurate methodology for electrocardiogram collection, measurement, and interpretation is used. Four aspects of such a methodology are discussed. First, advanced methods for QT interval measurement are proposed including suggestion of multilead measurements in problematic recordings such as those in atrial fibrillation patients. Second, serial comparisons of T-wave morphologies are advocated instead of simple acceptance of historical QTc measurements. Third, the necessity of understanding the pitfalls of heart rate correction is stressed including the necessity of avoiding the Bazett correction in cases of using QTc values for clinical decisions. Finally, the frequently overlooked problem of QT-heart rate hysteresis is discussed including the possibility of gross QTc errors when correcting the QT interval for simultaneously measured short-term heart rate.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".