The 12‐lead electrocardiogram of the elite female footballer as defined by different interpretation criteria across the competitive season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Pre‐participation screening (PPS), using a 12‐lead electrocardiogram (ECG), is recommended to identify athletes at risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). ECG interpretation criteria have been developed to address the concern arising from high false‐positives in athletes. There are limited ECG data in elite female footballers. The aims of this study were to (1) compare the ECG outcomes using three published ECG criteria (European Society of Cardiology [ESC], Seattle, International) in elite female footballers and (2) compare ECG data at three different stages of a competitive season. Eighty‐one elite female footballers (21 ± 4 yr) completed a medical assessment, anthropometrics, resting blood pressure and a resting 12‐lead ECG. Each 12‐lead ECG was interpreted in accordance with (1) ESC; (2) Seattle; (3) International Criteria to determine training‐related and non‐training‐related ECG changes. A subset of thirteen (26 ± 4 yr) footballers had repeated resting ECG tests at three time points across the competitive season. Eighty percent of females had training‐related ECG patterns. Sinus bradycardia (65%) and early repolarization (42%) were the most common. Using the ESC Criteria 25% (20/81) of the athletes were considered to have an abnormal ECG, compared to 0% using the Seattle and International Criteria, mainly due to alterations in QT length criteria. There were no clinically significant differences in ECG data across a competitive season. The Seattle and International ECG Criteria significantly reduced the number of ECG false‐positives in elite female footballers and the time point of PPS within a competitive season is unlikely to alter the PPS outcomes. Abbreviations: AMSSM: American Medical Society for Sports Medicine; ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; BSA: Body Surface Area; ECG: Electrocardiogram; ESC: European Society of Cardiology; FA: Football Association; FIFA: The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA); F‐MARC: FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre; LAE: Left atrial enlargement; LVH: Left ventricular hypertrophy; PPS: Pre‐participation screening; SCD: Sudden cardiac death
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".