Potential overdiagnosis of long QT syndrome using exercise stress and QT stand testing in children and adolescents with a low probability of disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a dangerous arrhythmia disorder that often presents in childhood and adolescence. The exercise stress test (EST) and QT-stand test may unmask QT interval prolongation at key heart rate transition points in LQTS, but their utility in children is debated. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the QT-stand test or EST can differentiate children with a low probability of LQTS from those with confirmed LQTS. METHODS: This retrospective study compares the corrected QT intervals (QTc) of children (<19 years) during the QT-stand test and EST. Patients were divided into three groups for comparison: confirmed LQTS (n = 14), low probability of LQTS (n = 14), and a control population (n = 9). RESULTS: Using the Bazett formula, confirmed LQTS patients had longer QTc intervals than controls when supine, standing, and at 3-4 min of recovery (p ≤ .01). Patients with a low probability of LQTS had longer QTc duration upon standing (p = .018) and at 1 min of recovery (p = .016) versus controls. There were no significant QTc differences at any transition point between low probability and confirmed LQTS. Using the Fridericia formula, differences in QTc between low probability and confirmed LQTS were also absent at the transition points examined, except at 1 min into exercise, where low probability patients had shorter QTc intervals (437 vs. 460 ms, p = .029). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic utility of the QT stand test and EST remains unclear in pediatric LQTS. The formula used for heart rate correction may influence accuracy, and dynamic T-U wave morphology changes may confound interpretation in low probability situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".