MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validating QT-Interval Measurement Using the Apple Watch ECG to Enable Remote Monitoring During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020· letter· en· W3032777011 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marc Strik, Théo Caillol, F. Daniel Ramirez, Saer Abu-Alrub, Hugo Marchand, Nicolas Welté, Philippe Ritter, Michel Haı̈ssaguerre, Sylvain Ploux, Pierre Bordachar

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAgence Nationale de la RechercheRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineUniversity hospitalCartographyMedical emergencyInternal medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

◼ electrocardiography ◼ long QT syndrome ◼ remote consultation ◼ telemedicine S creening and monitoring for QT prolongation when certain medications are initiated are routinely performed to avoid arrhythmic complications.However, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and its proposed treatments-including hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, which are known to prolong the QT interval 1 -raise logistical and safety concerns with established QT monitoring strategies.Recently, the American College of Cardiology made recommendations for QT monitoring in outpatients with COVID-19 on hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin, suggesting that the use of direct-to-consumer mobile devices such as the Apple Watch 1-lead ECG could be considered in cases of resource constraints or quarantines. 2The Apple Watch ECG is cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for detecting atrial fibrillation but has not been studied for QT monitoring.Lead I (the lead recorded by the Apple Watch) may be suboptimal for measuring this interval; however, other leads can be reproduced by placing the smartwatch on the left ankle or chest. 3We therefore sought to validate the use of the Apple Watch for QT measurement, including using nonstandard smartwatch positions, in an unselected outpatient population.Between December 2019 and January 2020, 100 consecutive patients in sinus rhythm were enrolled from outpatient or emergency departments.The study was approved by our institutional review committee, and the subjects gave informed consent.Standard 12-lead ECGs were performed, followed by smartwatch electrocardiographic recordings using the Apple Watch Series 4 (Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA).After a brief demonstration, patients recorded 30-second Apple Watch electrocardiographic equivalents of lead I (AW-I; watch on left wrist), lead II (AW-II; watch on left ankle), and a simulated lead V 6 (AW-LAT; watch on left lateral chest; Figure [A]).Using commercially available software (EP Calipers, EP studios Inc, Louisville, KY), a cardiologist measured 3 RR and QT intervals to calculate the corrected QT interval (QTc) using the Bazett formula (Figure [B]).A QTc >480 milliseconds was considered high risk.Agreement between the 12-lead and Apple Watch QTc measurements was calculated with the use of the median absolute error and Bland-Altman analyses.To measure interobserver variability, all AW-I QTc measurements were repeated by a second blinded cardiologist, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated on the basis of a 2-way random absolute agreement model with single measurements.Agreement on whether a tracing was interpretable was assessed with the Cohen κ statistic.T-wave amplitude was measured to evaluate its association with QTc measurement accuracy.The mean age was 67±7 years; 59% were male; and 35% had diagnosed cardiac disease.Heart rates were similar on 12-lead and Apple Watch recordings (69±11 bpm versus 70±13 bpm, respectively; P=0.2, paired Student t test).QTc intervals ranged from 336 to 530 milliseconds on 12-lead ECGs.Eight patients were identified as high risk, all of whom were similarly identified by the smartwatch.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations101
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207