ArticleThe Journal of physiology2026
Beat-to-beat variability of ventricular repolarization reveals sex-specific instability and proarrhythmic risk.
Article in The Journal of physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Beat-to-beat QT interval variability (QTV) is a well-established marker of increased vulnerability to ventricular arrhythmias; however the underlying electrophysiological mechanisms remain poorly understood. In this study, we employed sex-specific, physiologically detailed computational models of human ventricular myocytes to investigate the role of dynamical repolarization instability under baseline and pharmacologically perturbed conditions. Action potential duration (APD) variability was quantified as a cellular-level surrogate for QTV and evaluated in relation to restitution kinetics, drug risk classification and biological sex. Female models exhibited significantly greater APD variability than male models, consistent with clinical observations of sex differences in QTV. Exposure to high-risk torsadogenic compounds further amplified APD variability, whereas drugs with low proarrhythmic potential produced only modest effects. Intermediate-risk agents elicited APD variability patterns aligned with previously reported machine learning-based predictions of torsades de pointes (TdP) risk. Notably increased APD variability strongly correlated with steeper APD restitution slopes, reflecting enhanced dynamical instability. Importantly elevated variability was observed even in the absence of early afterdepolarizations (EADs), underscoring its potential as a sensitive, early marker of proarrhythmic susceptibility. These findings provide mechanistic evidence linking dynamical instability to QTV and establish sex as a critical modulator of arrhythmogenic drug response. KEY POINTS: Beat-to-beat QT interval variability (QTV) is an established clinical marker of arrhythmic risk, but the mechanistic link between QTV and arrhythmia remains poorly understood. Using sex-specific, physiologically detailed human ventricular myocyte models, we show that QTV arises from dynamical repolarization instability, with action potential duration (APD) variability closely tracking the slope of the APD restitution curve. Female models exhibited greater baseline APD variability than male models, in agreement with findings in human ventricular cardiomyocyte experiments, and exposure to high-risk torsadogenic drugs further amplified this variability in a concentration-dependent manner, even in the absence of early afterdepolarizations (EADs). APD variability emerged as an indicator of dynamical instability and was predictive of arrhythmogenic susceptibility across a range of pacing rates and pharmacological conditions. Our findings support its integration into safety pharmacology frameworks to improve current arrhythmia risk assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.