Abstract WP222: Comparison of Two Methods of External Prolonged Cardiac Monitoring for the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation: Cardiophone - satellite Real Time Device vs Sorin (Automated Software) for the Peaace Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recent evidence has shown that prolonged cardiac monitoring is superior to 24 hour Holter for detection of atrial fibrillation (AF). We compared two methods of prolonged monitoring in patients with acute ischemic stroke and TIAs. Objective: Comparison of the Cardiophone and Sorin monitor for detection of AF. Method: In the first part of the study (PEAACE I; 2011-2013), we used the spiderflash (Sorin, Italy) for up to 21 days of monitoring. In the second part (PEAACE II; 2013-2015), Cardiophone with real time monitoring of the heart rhythm for 14 days was used. Results: 102 patients in PEAACE I, (Mean age 72 +/-, 48.8% male) were compared to 120 patients in PEAACE II (Mean age 73 +/-, 70% male). Stroke type was “undetermined (cryptogenic) 92% and 91% in the two studies respectively. In PEAACE I, AF was detected in 43 out of 102 subjects (42%) (72% <30 seconds, 28% >30 seconds) with detection of 75% in the first week, 23% in the second, and 2% in the last week. In PEAACE II, 20 out of 120 subjects (17%) (70% <30 seconds, 30% >30 seconds) had AF, with 55% of detection in the first week, 45% in the second one (χ2 p=0.001). In PEAACE II, the results were available faster, within 2 days compared to 21 days in PEAACE I (χ2 p<0.0005). In PEAACE II, 90% of the patients received anticoagulation (93% of participants with A Fib <30 seconds, 83% with >30 seconds) compared to 77% in PEAACE I (68% with AF <30 seconds and 100% with AF >30 seconds) (χ2 p=0.021). Conclusion: There were significant differences noted in the rates of detection with the two techniques. Real-time monitoring resulted in recording of fewer events but lead to earlier initiation of treatment. All patients with >30 seconds of AF were anticoagulated whereas fewer patients with less than 30 seconds of AF were anticoagulated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".