Comparing 14-day Adhesive Patch With 24-h Holter Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barrett PM, Komatireddy R, Haaser S et al. Comparison of 24-hour Holter monitoring with 14-day novel adhesive patch electrocardiographic monitoring. Am. J. Med. 127(1), 95.e11–95.e17 (2014). The investigation of cardiac arrhythmias in the outpatient ambulatory setting has traditionally been initiated with the Holter monitor. Using the continuous recording over 24 or 48 h, the Holter monitor permits the detection of baseline rhythm, dysrhythmia and conduction abnormalities, including heart block and changes in the ST segment that may indicate myocardial ischemia. However, apart from the bulkiness and inconvenience of the device itself, the lack of extended monitoring results in a diagnostic yield of typically less than 20%. In this study by Barrett et al., 146 patients referred for the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmia were prospectively enrolled to wear both the 24-h Holter monitor and 14-day adhesive patch monitor (Zio Patch) simultaneously. The primary outcome was the detection of any one of six arrhythmias: supraventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation/flutter, pause >3 s, atrioventricular block, ventricular tachycardia, or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. The adhesive patch monitor detected more arrhythmia events compared with the Holter monitor over the total wear time (96 vs. 61 events; p < 0.001), although the Holter monitor detected more events during the initial 24-h monitoring period (61 vs. 52 events; p = 0.013). Novel, single-lead, intermediate-duration, user-friendly adhesive patch monitoring devices, such as the Zio Patch, represent the changing face of ambulatory ECG monitoring. However, the loss of quality, automated rhythm analysis and inability to detect myocardial ischemia continue to remain important issues that will need to be addressed prior to the implementation of these new devices.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".