Proposed In‐Training Electrocardiogram Interpretation Competencies for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its importance in everyday clinical practice, the ability of physicians to interpret electrocardiograms (ECGs) is highly variable. ECG patterns are often misdiagnosed, and electrocardiographic emergencies are frequently missed, leading to adverse patient outcomes. Currently, many medical education programs lack an organized curriculum and competency assessment to ensure trainees master this essential skill. ECG patterns that were previously mentioned in literature were organized into groups from A to D based on their clinical importance and distributed among levels of training. Incremental versions of this organization were circulated among members of the International Society of Electrocardiology and the International Society of Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology until complete consensus was reached. We present reasonably attainable ECG interpretation competencies for undergraduate and postgraduate trainees. Previous literature suggests that methods of teaching ECG interpretation are less important and can be selected based on the available resources of each education program and student preference. The evidence clearly favors summative trainee evaluation methods, which would facilitate learning and ensure that appropriate competencies are acquired. Resources should be allocated to ensure that every trainee reaches their training milestones and should ensure that no electrocardiographic emergency (class A condition) is ever missed. We hope that these guidelines will inform medical education programs and encourage them to allocate sufficient resources and develop organized curricula. Assessments must be in place to ensure trainees acquire the level-appropriate ECG interpretation skills that are required for safe clinical practice.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".