MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Smartphone and new tools for atrial fibrillation diagnosis: evidence for clinical applicability

2022· article· en· W4214660647 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Cardiology and Angiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationPhotoplethysmogramAsymptomaticStroke (engine)EarlobeSubclinical infectionCardiac arrhythmiaWearable computer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in adults. AF increases the risk of heart failure, cardiac ischemic disease, dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Either clinical and subclinical AF increase the risk of stroke and worsen the patients' clinical outcome. The early diagnosis of AF episodes, even if asymptomatic or clinically silent, is of pivotal importance to ensure prompt and adequate thromboembolic risk prevention therapies. The development of technology is allowing new systematic mass screening possibilities, especially in patients with higher stroke risk. The mobile health devices available for AF detection are: smartphones, wrist-worn, earlobe sensors and handheld ECG. These devices showed a high accuracy in AF detection especially when a combined approach with single-lead ECG and photoplethysmography algorithms is used. The use of wearable devices for AF screening is a feasible method but more head-to-head comparisons between mHealth and medical devices are needed to establish their comparative effectiveness across different study populations.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.372
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.082 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Cardiology and AngiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207