MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912252017 · doi:10.22489/cinc.2018.162

The Reproducibility of Global Electrical Heterogeneity ECG Measurements

2018· article· en· W2912252017 on OpenAlexaff
Erick Andres Perez Alday, Christopher Hamilton, Annabel Lipershi, Jose Manuel Monroy Trujillo, Michelle M. Estrella, Stephen M. Sozio, Bernard G. Jaar, Rulan S. Parekh, Larisa G. Tereshchenko

Bibliographic record

VenueComputing in cardiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsReproducibilityMedicineQRS complexInternal medicineCardiologySinus rhythmMagnitude (astronomy)ElectrocardiographyCardiac resynchronization therapyConcordanceNuclear medicineMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsEjection fractionHeart failureAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Global electrical heterogeneity (GEH) is a useful predictor of adverse clinical outcomes.However, reproducibility of GEH measurements on 10-second routine clinical ECG is unknown.Methods: Data of the prospective cohort study of incident hemodialysis patients (n=253; mean age 54.6±13.5y;56% male; 79% African American) were analysed.Two random 10-second segments of 5-minute ECG recording in sinus rhythm were compared.GEH was measured as spatial QRS-T angle, spatial ventricular gradient (SVG) magnitude and direction (azimuth and elevation), and a scalar value of SVG measured by (1) sum absolute QRST integral (SAI QRST), and (2) QT integral on vector magnitude signal (iVMQT).Bland-Altman analysis was used to calculate agreement.Results: For all studied vectorcardiographic metrics, agreement was substantial (Lin's concordance coefficient >0.98), and precision was perfect (>99.99%).95% limits of agreement were ±14º for spatial QRS-T angle, ±13º for SVG azimuth, ±4º for SVG elevation, ±14 mV*ms for SVG magnitude, and ±17 mV*ms for SAI QRST.SAI QRST and iVMQT were in substantial agreement with each other.Conclusion: Reproducibility of a 10-second automated GEH ECG measurements was substantial, and precision was perfect.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputing in cardiologySame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207