Comparison Between QT and Corrected QT Interval Assessment by an Apple Watch With the AccurBeat Platform and by a 12‑Lead Electrocardiogram With Manual Annotation: Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormal prolongation or shortening of the QT interval is associated with increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. For continuous monitoring, widespread use, and prevention of cardiac events, advanced wearable technologies are emerging as promising surrogates for conventional 12‑lead electrocardiogram (ECG) QT interval assessment. Previous studies have shown a good agreement between QT and corrected QT (QTc) intervals measured on a smartwatch ECG and a 12-lead ECG, but the clinical accuracy of computerized algorithms for QT and QTc interval measurement from smartwatch ECGs is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The prospective observational study compared the smartwatch-recorded QT and QTc assessed using AccurKardia's AccurBeat platform with the conventional 12‑lead ECG annotated manually by a cardiologist. METHODS: ECGs were collected from healthy participants (without any known cardiovascular disease) aged >22 years. Two consecutive 30-second ECG readings followed by (within 15 minutes) a 10-second standard 12-lead ECG were recorded for each participant. Characteristics of the participants were compared by sex using a 2-sample t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Statistical comparisons of heart rate (HR), QT interval, and QTc interval between the platform and the 12-lead ECG, ECG lead I, and ECG lead II were done using the Wilcoxon sign rank test. Linear regression was used to predict QTc and QT intervals from the ECG based on the platform's QTc/QT intervals with adjustment for age, sex, and difference in HR measurement. The Bland-Altman method was used to check agreement between various QT and QTc interval measurements. RESULTS: A total of 50 participants (32 female, mean age 46 years, SD 1 year) were included in the study. The result of the regression model using the platform measurements to predict the 12-lead ECG measurements indicated that, in univariate analysis, QT/QTc intervals from the platform significantly predicted QT/QTc intervals from the 12-lead ECG, ECG lead I, and ECG lead II, and this remained significant after adjustment for sex, age, and change in HR. The Bland-Altman plot results found that 96% of the average QTc interval measurements between the platform and QTc intervals from the 12-lead ECG were within the 95% confidence limit of the average difference between the two measurements, with a mean difference of -10.5 (95% limits of agreement -71.43, 50.43). A total of 94% of the average QT interval measurements between the platform and the 12-lead ECG were within the 95% CI of the average difference between the two measurements, with a mean difference of -6.3 (95% limits of agreement -54.54, 41.94). CONCLUSIONS: QT and QTc intervals obtained by a smartwatch coupled with the platform's assessment were comparable to those from a 12-lead ECG. Accordingly, with further refinements, remote monitoring using this technology holds promise for the identification of QT interval prolongation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".