Automated Electrocardiogram Analysis Identifies Novel Predictors of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Brugada Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients suffering from Brugada syndrome (BrS) are at an increased risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Whilst electrocardiographic (ECG) variables have been used for risk stratification with varying degrees of success, automated measurements have not been tested for their ability to predict adverse outcomes in BrS. Methods: BrS patients presenting in a single tertiary center between 2000 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. ECG variables on vector magnitude, axis, amplitude and duration from all 12 leads were determined. The primary endpoint was spontaneous ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) on follow-up. Results: This study included 83 patients [93% male, median presenting age: 56 (41–66) years old, 45% type 1 pattern] with 12 developing the primary endpoint (median follow-up: 75 (Q1–Q3: 26–114 months). Cox regression showed that QRS frontal axis > 70.0 degrees, QRS horizontal axis > 57.5 degrees, R-wave amplitude (lead I) <0.67 mV, R-wave duration (lead III) > 50.0 ms, S-wave amplitude (lead I) < −0.144 mV, S-wave duration (lead aVL) > 35.5 ms, QRS duration (lead V3) > 96.5 ms, QRS area in lead I < 0.75 Ashman units, ST slope (lead I) > 31.5 deg, T-wave area (lead V1) < −3.05 Ashman units and PR interval (lead V2) > 157 ms were significant predictors. A weighted score based on dichotomized values provided good predictive performance (hazard ratio: 1.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.27–2.00, P -value<0.0001, area under the curve: 0.84). Conclusions: Automated ECG analysis revealed novel risk markers in BrS. These markers should be validated in larger prospective studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".