The Value of Electrocardiographic Abnormalities in the Prognosis of Pulmonary Embolism: A Consensus Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrocardiographic (ECG) abnormalities in the setting of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are being increasingly characterized and mounting evidence suggests that ECG plays a valuable role in prognostication for PE. We review the historical 21-point ECG prognostic score for the severity of PE and examine the updated evidence surrounding the utility of ECG abnormalities in prognostication for severity of acute PE. We performed a literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed up to February 2015. Article titles and abstracts were screened, and articles were included if they were observational studies that used a surface 12-lead ECG as the instrument for measurement, a diagnosis of PE was confirmed by imaging, arteriography or autopsy, and analysis of prognostic outcomes was performed. Thirty-six articles met our inclusion criteria. We review the prognostic value of ECG abnormalities included in the 21-point ECG score, including new evidence that has arisen since the time of its publication. We also discuss the potential prognostic value of several ECG abnormalities with newly identified prognostic value in the setting of acute PE.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".