The prognostic significance of Q waves and T wave inversions in the ECG of patients with STEMI: A substudy of the TOTAL trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of Q waves and T-wave inversions (TWI) combined and separately in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI has not been well established in previous studies. METHODS: We included 7,831 patients from the TOTAL trial and divided the patients into categories based on Q waves and TWIs in the presenting ECG. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock or new or worsening NYHA class IV heart failure within one year. The study evaluated the effect of Q waves and TWI on the risk of primary outcome and all-cause death, and whether patient benefit of aspiration thrombectomy differed between the ECG categories. RESULTS: Patients with Q+TWI+ (Q wave and TWI) pattern had higher risk of primary outcome compared to patients with Q-TWI- pattern [33 (10.5%) vs. 221 (4.2%); adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.10; 95% CI, 1.45-3.04; p<0.001] within 40-days' period. When analyzed separately, patients with Q waves had a higher risk for the primary outcome compared to patients with no Q waves in the first 40 days [aHR 1.80; 95% CI, 1.48-2.19; p<0.001] but there was no additive risk after 40 days. Patients with TWI had a higher risk for primary outcome only after 40 days when compared to patients with no TWI [aHR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.04-2.55; p=0.033]. There was a trend towards a benefit of thrombectomy in patients with the Q+TWI+ pattern. CONCLUSIONS: Q waves and TWI combined (Q+TWI+ pattern) in the presenting ECG is associated with unfavourable outcome within 40-days. Q waves tend to affect short-term outcome, while TWI has more effect on long-term outcome.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".