MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105707210 · doi:10.2196/18840

Development and Validation of an Automated Algorithm to Detect Atrial Fibrillation Within Stored Intensive Care Unit Continuous Electrocardiographic Data: Observational Study

2020· article· en· W3105707210 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allan J. Walkey, Syed Khairul Bashar, Md-Billal Hossain, Eric Ding, Daniella Albuquerque, Michael Winter, Ki H. Chon, David D. McManus

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteBristol-Myers SquibbSamsungNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthPfizer
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationIntensive care unitAlgorithmIntensive careSepsisElectrocardiographyPremature atrial contractionInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia during critical illness, representing a sepsis-defining cardiac dysfunction associated with adverse outcomes. Large burdens of premature beats and noisy signal during sepsis may pose unique challenges to automated AF detection. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to develop and validate an automated algorithm to accurately identify AF within electronic health care data among critically ill patients with sepsis. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with sepsis identified from Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC III) electronic health data with linked electrocardiographic (ECG) telemetry waveforms. Within 3 separate cohorts of 50 patients, we iteratively developed and validated an automated algorithm that identifies ECG signals, removes noise, and identifies irregular rhythm and premature beats in order to identify AF. We compared the automated algorithm to current methods of AF identification in large databases, including ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition) codes and hourly nurse annotation of heart rhythm. Methods of AF identification were tested against gold-standard manual ECG review. RESULTS: AF detection algorithms that did not differentiate AF from premature atrial and ventricular beats performed modestly, with 76% (95% CI 61%-87%) accuracy. Performance improved (P=.02) with the addition of premature beat detection (validation set accuracy: 94% [95% CI 83%-99%]). Median time between automated and manual detection of AF onset was 30 minutes (25th-75th percentile 0-208 minutes). The accuracy of ICD-9 codes (68%; P=.002 vs automated algorithm) and nurse charting (80%; P=.02 vs algorithm) was lower than that of the automated algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: An automated algorithm using telemetry ECG data can feasibly and accurately detect AF among critically ill patients with sepsis, and represents an improvement in AF detection within large databases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207