Double Trouble: Patients With Both True and False Arrhythmia Alarms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with both true and false arrhythmia alarms pose a challenge because true alarms might be buried among a large number of false alarms, leading to missed true events. OBJECTIVE: To determine (1) the frequency of patients with both true and false arrhythmia alarms; (2) patient, clinical, and electrocardiographic characteristics associated with both true and false alarms; and (3) the frequency and types of true and false arrhythmia alarms. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis using data from an alarm study conducted at a tertiary academic medical center. RESULTS: Of 461 intensive care unit patients, 211 (46%) had no arrhythmia alarms, 12 (3%) had only true alarms, 167 (36%) had only false alarms, and 71 (15%) had both true and false alarms. Ventricular pacemaker, altered mental status, mechanical ventilation, and cardiac intensive care unit admission were present more often in patients with both true and false alarms than among other patients (P < .001). Intensive care unit stays were longer in patients with only false alarms (mean [SD], 106 [162] hours) and those with both true and false alarms (mean [SD], 208 [333] hours) than in other patients. Accelerated ventricular rhythm was the most common alarm type (37%). CONCLUSIONS: An awareness of factors associated with arrhythmia alarms might aid in developing solutions to decrease alarm fatigue. To improve detection of true alarms, further research is needed to build and test electrocardiographic algorithms that adjust for clinical and electrocardiographic characteristics associated with false alarms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".