P Wave Parameters and Indices: A Critical Appraisal of Clinical Utility, Challenges, and Future Research-A Consensus Document Endorsed by the International Society of Electrocardiology and the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, P wave axis, P wave voltage, P wave area, and P wave dispersion. PWPs can be combined to yield an index (P wave index), such as the morphology-voltage-P-wave duration ECG risk score. Abnormal PWPs have been shown in population-based cohort studies to be independently associated with higher risks of atrial fibrillation, ischemic stroke, sudden cardiac death, and dementia. Additionally, PWPs, either individually or in combination (as a P wave index), have been reported to enhance prediction of atrial fibrillation or ischemic stroke. To facilitate translation of PWPs to routine clinical practice, additional work is needed to standardize measurement of PWPs (eg, via semiautomated or automated measurement), confirm their reliability and predictive value, leverage novel approaches (eg, wavelet analysis of P waves and machine learning algorithms), and finally, define the risk-benefit ratio of specific interventions in high-risk individuals. Our ultimate goal is to repurpose the ubiquitous 12-lead ECG to advance the study, diagnosis, and treatment of atrial cardiomyopathy, thus overcoming critical challenges in prevention of cardiovascular disease and dementia.
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 | 0.101 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".