A Method to Minimise the Impact of ECG Marker Inaccuracies on the Spatial QRS-T angle: Evaluation on 1,512 Manually Annotated ECGs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spatial QRS-T angle (QRS-Ta) derived from the vectorcardiogram (VCG) is a strong risk predictor for ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death with potential use for mass screening. Accurate QRS-Ta estimation in the presence of ECG delineation errors is crucial for its deployment as a prognostic test. Our study assessed the effect of inaccurate QRS and T-wave marker placement on QRS-Ta estimation and proposes a robust method for its calculation. Reference QRS-Ta measurements were derived from 1,512 VCGs manually annotated by three expert reviewers. We systematically changed onset and offset timings of QRS and T-wave markers to simulate inaccurate placement. The QRS-Ta was recalculated using a standard approach and our proposed algorithm, which limits the impact of VCG marker inaccuracies by defining the vector origin as an interval preceding QRS-onset and redefines the beginning and end of QRS and T-wave loops. Using the standard approach, mean absolute errors (MAE) in peak QRS-Ta were >40% and sensitivity and precision in the detection of abnormality (>105°) were <80% and <65% respectively, when QRS-onset was delayed or QRS-offset anticipated >15 ms. Using our proposed algorithm, MAE for peak QRS-Ta were reduced to <4% and sensitivity and precision of abnormality were >94% for inaccuracies up to ±15 ms. Similar results were obtained for mean QRS-Ta. In conclusion, inaccuracies of QRS and T-wave markers can significantly influence the QRS-Ta. Our proposed algorithm provides robust QRS-Ta measurements in the presence of inaccurate VCG annotation, enabling its use in large datasets.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".