MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393472423 · doi:10.1002/agm2.12291

Relationship between Alzheimer dementia and <scp>QT</scp> interval: A meta‐analysis

2024· review· en· W4393472423 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMeta-analysisInterval (graph theory)NeurosciencePsychologyMedicineInternal medicineMathematicsDiseaseCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While the link between aging and mortality from dementia is widely appreciated, the mechanism is not clear. The objective of this study was to determine whether there is a direct relationship between Alzheimer dementia (AD) and the QT interval, because the latter has been related to cardiac mortality. A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted after a Medline and EMBASE search using terms “Alzheimer disease or Dementia AND QT interval, QT dispersion or cardiac repolarization.” Four studies with control groups were identified. There were significant differences in QT interval between individuals with AD vs individuals without dementia (controls) (odds ratio (OR)1.665 [random effects model] and 1.879 [fixed effect model]) ( p &lt; 0.001). There were significant differences in QT interval between individuals with AD vs individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (OR 1.760 [random effects] and 1.810 [fixed effect]) ( p &lt; 0.001). A significant ( p &lt;0.001) correlation exists between the QTc and the Mini‐Mental State Exam (MMSE), a test of cognitive function. Two studies examined QT variability (the difference between the longest and shortest QT interval on a 12 lead ECG); the OR for QT variability AD vs MCI was 3.858 [random effects model] and 3.712 [fixed effects model] ( p &lt; 0.001). When compared to the control group, the OR for QT dispersion in AD was 6.358 [random effects model] or 5.143 ( P &lt; 0.001) [fixed effects model]. A qualitative analysis of the data raised questions about paucity of data defining the nature of the control groups, the pathophysiologic mechanism, and the uniform use of a poor QT heart rate correction factor. The longer QT in AD, greater QT variability in AD, and the direct relationship between QT interval and AD severity supports a brain–heart connection in AD that might be fundamental to aging‐induced AD and mortality. Issues with defining the control group, limited number of studies, conflicting data in population studies, and the lack of a strong electrophysiological basis underscore the need for additional research in this field.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.174 · 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