MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036182309 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-66987-7

Accuracy of Electrocardiography and Agreement with Echocardiography in the Diagnosis of Pediatric Left Atrial Enlargement

2020· article· en· W3036182309 on OpenAlexaff
Charis Ng, Attila Ahmad, Dalton Budhram, Mu He, N. Balakrishnan, Tapas Mondal

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of AlbertaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLeft atrial enlargementCardiologyInternal medicineElectrocardiographyGold standard (test)Context (archaeology)Receiver operating characteristicDiastoleLeft atriumAtrial fibrillationBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Left atrial enlargement (LAE) is a marker for diastolic cardiac dysfunction. Echocardiograms are considered the gold-standard for diagnosis, but given their wider access and lower economic cost, electrocardiograms (ECGs) may be useful in identifying patients who would benefit from further investigation. This study investigates the utility of ECG criteria to diagnose LAE in pediatric patients. A retrospective chart review (n = 492) was conducted in patients whose echocardiograms demonstrated LAE by left atrial indexed diameter z-score ≥2.0 and/or increased left atrial to aortic root ratio at various cutoffs (≥1.4, ≥1.6, ≥1.8). ECG criteria studied included: (1) P wave ≥110 msec, (2) P mitrale ≥40 msec, in LII (3) terminal negative P wave deflection in lead V1 > 40 msec, and (4) P/PR segment >1.6 in lead II. Sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's Kappa coefficient (κ), and ROC curves were calculated. A combination of P mitrale ≥40 msec and terminal negative P wave deflection in lead V1 > 40 msec yielded the greatest agreement (κ = 0.221, 95%CI 0.060-0.382), but all ECG criteria used to diagnose LAE had poor diagnostic value (AUC < 0.60). The present ECG criteria should not be used to diagnose LAE in the absence of an echocardiogram and findings should be considered in the context of clinical symptoms.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207