Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background PD (PD) is associated with a twofold increase in the risk of death especially sudden death. A predisposing factor for cardiac sudden death is prolongation of the QT interval. This study evaluated the potential association between QT interval and PD. Methods A systematic search was conducted of Medline and EMBASE using the search terms “PD” AND “QT interval” OR “Cardiac Repolarization” to identify articles. Results Seven studies with persons with PD (n = 981) and control groups were identified. There was a significant difference in QT interval comparing patients with PD and persons without PD. The odds ratio showed a significant (P < 0.001) 2.6-fold (random effect) greater QTc prolongation in PD compared to control. Overall, there was a significantly longer QT in patients with PD than controls of 10.7 ± 2.8 ms. Data analysis did not show much publication bias. Focusing only on studies that related the QT interval to the severity of PD as assessed by Hoehn–Yahr classification (n = 6), there was a significant (P = 0.004) overall correlation between QT interval and the severity of PD. There was little publication bias. The data directly examining patients with PD taking any drug than might prolong QT do not support an association between these mediations and QT prolongation. Conclusion Individuals with PD have a longer QT interval than individuals without PD. The QT interval is associated with a greater severity of PD and a greater probability of developing more severe PD. The QT interval should be considered in assessment of PD and possibly as a target for the treatment of PD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".