MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401584175 · doi:10.36311/jhgd.v34.16300

Brugada syndrome, early repolarization syndrome/j-wave syndromes, and a subtype of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation: microstructural cardiomyopathies

2024· article· en· W4401584175 on OpenAlexaff
Andrés Ricardo Pérez‐Riera, Kjell Nikus, Adrián Baranchuk, Pedro Brugada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Growth and Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrugada syndromeMedicineCardiologyJ waveInternal medicineVentricular fibrillationSudden cardiac deathImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorChannelopathyShort QT syndromeIncidence (geometry)Precordial examinationCatheter ablationElectrocardiographyAtrial fibrillationLong QT syndromeQT interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brugada Syndrome is an inherited cardiac channelopathy with a high incidence of ventricular fibrillation and sudden cardiac death in patients with structurally normal hearts. Diagnosis is based on a characteristic electrocardiographic pattern (coved type ST-segment elevation ≥2 mm followed by a negative T-wave in ≥1 in the right precordial leads V1-V2) combined with an absence of gross structural abnormalities and several other criteria. The cornerstone of BrS diagnosis and definition, is its characteristic ECG pattern that can be present spontaneously or unmasked by drugs. This entity was described by the Brugada brothers in 1992 and belongs to a group of diseases known as inherited primary arrhythmia syndromes. The prevalence varies among regions and ethnicities, affecting mostly males. Despite several genes identified, SCN5A seems to be the most affected gene related BrS (≈ 30% of patients). The current main therapy is an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, but radiofrequency catheter ablation has been recently reported as an effective new treatment.

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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human Growth and DevelopmentSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207