The influence of exercise and postural changes on ventricular repolarization in the long QT syndrome: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current exercise recommendations make it difficult for long QT syndrome (LQTS) patients to adopt a physically active and/or athletic lifestyle. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and discuss research perspectives in the field of exercise and LQTS. The first aim is to document the influence of exercise training, exercise stress, and postural change interventions on ventricular repolarization in LQTS patients, while the second aim is to describe electrophysiological measurements used to study the above. Studies examining the effects of exercise on congenital or acquired LQTS in human subjects of all ages were included. Systematic searches were performed on 1 October 2021, through PubMed (NLM), Ovid Medline, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, and ISI Web of Science, and limited to articles written in English or French. A total of 1986 LQTS patients and 2560 controls were included in the 49 studies. Studies were mainly case-control studies (n = 41) and examined exercise stress and/or postural change interventions (n = 48). One study used a 3-month exercise training program. Results suggest that LQTS patients have subtype-specific repolarization responses to sympathetic stress. Measurement methods and quality were found to be very heterogeneous, which makes inter-study comparisons difficult. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, the current recommendations may have long-term risks for LQTS patients who are discouraged from performing physical activity, rendering its associated health benefits out of range. Future research should focus on discovering the most appropriate levels of exercise training that promote ventricular repolarization normalization in LQTS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".