MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2158425027 · doi:10.1109/cic.1992.269508

Best ECG leads for diagnosing acute myocardial infarction by multivariate analysis of body surface potential maps

2003· article· en· W2158425027 on OpenAlexaff
F. Kornreich, Terrence J. Montague, P.M. Rautaharju

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionPrecordial examinationInternal medicineElectrocardiographyST depressionST segmentPopulationBody surfaceLinear discriminant analysisMultivariate analysisNuclear medicineArtificial intelligenceMathematicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors compared 120-lead body surface potential map (BSPM) data from 131 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and 159 normal control subjects (N). The MI population was stratified according to the location of ventricular wall motion abnormalities using technetium-99m-labeled blood pool imaging into 76 patients with anterior MI (AMI), 32 patients with inferior MI (IMI), and 23 patients with posterior MI (PMI). Stepwise discriminant analysis was performed for each pairwise comparison (AMI vs N, IMI vs. N, and PMI vs. N) using as measurements the ST magnitude in 120 electrode sites from each individual. Two leads from areas with the most abnormal ST changes achieved optimal classification in each MI class, and five of these six leads were outside the precordial electrode positions. In each bigroup classification, the first and best measurement corresponded to ST depression while the second represented ST elevation. Sensitivities at a specificity level of 95% were 82% for AMI, 93% for PMI, and 100% for IMI.>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias→French-language works237,207→