Using a smartwatch electrocardiogram to detect abnormalities associated with sudden cardiac arrest in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Smartwatch electrocardiograms (ECGs) could facilitate the detection of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA)-associated abnormalities. We evaluated the feasibility of using smartwatch-derived ECGs for detecting SCA-associated abnormalities in young adults and its agreement with 12-lead ECGs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twelve-lead and Apple Watch ECGs were registered in 155 healthy volunteers and 67 patients aged 18-45 years with diagnosis and ECG signs of long-QT syndrome (n = 10), Brugada syndrome (n = 12), ventricular pre-excitation (n = 19), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM, n = 13), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy (ARVC/D, n = 13). Cardiologists separately analysed 12-lead ECGs and the smartwatch ECGs taken from the left wrist (AW-I) and then from chest positions V1, V3, and V6 (AW-4). Compared with AW-I, AW-4 improved the classification of ECGs as 'abnormal', increasing the sensitivity from 64% to 89% (P < 0.01). Pre-excitation was detected in most cases using AW-I (sensitivity 89%) and in all cases using AW-4 (sensitivity 100%, P = 0.48 compared with AW-I, specificity 100% for both). Brugada was missed using AW-I but was detected in 11/12 patients using AW-4 (sensitivity 92%, specificity 100%, P = 0.003). Long QT was detected in 8/10 cases using AW-I (sensitivity 80%, specificity 100%) and in 9 patients using AW-4 (sensitivity 90%, specificity 100%, P > 0.99). Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was correctly suspected using AW-I and AW-4 (sensitivity 92% and 85%, specificity 85%, and 100%, P > 0.99). AW-I was mostly (62%) considered normal in ARVC/D whereas AW-4 was useful in suspecting ARVC/D (100% sensitivity, 99% specificity, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of SCA-associated ECG abnormalities (pre-excitation, Brugada patterns, long QT, and signs suggestive of HCM and ARVC/D) is possible with an ECG 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".