MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201585859 · doi:10.1136/openhrt-2021-001671

Paediatric/young versus adult patients with long QT syndrome

2021· article· en· W3201585859 on OpenAlexaff
Sharen Lee, Jiandong Zhou, Kamalan Jeevaratnam, Wing Tak Wong, Ian Chi Kei Wong, Chloe Miu Mak, Ngai Shing Mok, Tong Liu, Qingpeng Zhang, Gary Tse

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Heart · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersTianjin Municipal Science and Technology Bureau
KeywordsMedicineLong QT syndromePediatricsInternal medicineQT interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) is a less prevalent cardiac ion channelopathy than Brugada syndrome in Asia. The present study compared the outcomes between paediatric/young and adult LQTS patients. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with LQTS attending public hospitals in Hong Kong. The primary outcome was spontaneous ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF). RESULTS: A total of 142 LQTS (mean onset age=27±23 years old) were included. Arrhythmias other than VT/VF (HR 4.67, 95% CI (1.53 to 14.3), p=0.007), initial VT/VF (HR=3.25 (95% CI 1.29 to 8.16), p=0.012) and Schwartz score (HR=1.90 (95% CI 1.11 to 3.26), p=0.020) were predictive of the primary outcome for the overall cohort, while arrhythmias other than VT/VF (HR=5.41 (95% CI 1.36 to 21.4), p=0.016) and Schwartz score (HR=4.67 (95% CI 1.48 to 14.7), p=0.009) were predictive for the adult subgroup (>25 years old; n=58). A random survival forest model identified initial VT/VF, Schwartz score, initial QTc interval, family history of LQTS, initially asymptomatic and arrhythmias other than VT/VF as the most important variables for risk prediction. CONCLUSION: Clinical and ECG presentation varies between the paediatric/young and adult LQTS population. Machine learning models achieved more accurate VT/VF prediction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen HeartSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207