The Relationship Between Cardiac Scar and Electrical Markers of Sudden Cardiac Arrest Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal approach to identifying patients at risk of serious arrhythmias after myocardial infarction (MI) is unclear. Electrocardiographic markers, including T-wave alternans (TWA) and Heart Rate Turbulence (HRT) and myocardial scar characteristics, assessed via cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), appear to provide useful information in this regard. However, the relationship between electrical and structural markers is unclear. A meta-analysis was conducted and demonstrated the utility of HRT after MI. In addition, a cross-sectional study was performed to assess the relationships of HRT and TWA with CMR-assessed myocardial scar extent and pattern. A total of 99 patients were enrolled 3-15 months after MI. No linear relationship between TWA and scar was observed. Yet, maximal TWA values were higher in patients with transmural versus non-trans-mural scar; particularly those with anterior, trans-mural scar. HRT slope was not related to myocardial scar. Based on these data, additional research is recommended to better define these relationships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".