MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4306255423 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.391

Prevalence of unreported atrial fibrillation in electrocardiograms with ventricular-paced rhythm: a multicenter experience

2022· article· en· W4306255423 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liane A. Arcinas, Colette Seifer, Nasir Shaikh

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineCardiologyRhythmElectrocardiographyStroke (engine)Cardiac arrhythmia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and a major preventable cause of stroke. The diagnosis of AF on electrocardiogram is through the recognition of absent p waves and an irregularly irregular ventricular rhythm. However, in ventricular-paced patients, the rhythm on electrocardiogram (ECG) is often regular and may obscure AF diagnosis. Thus, unrecognized AF on ECG poses a potential risk among untreated ventricular-paced patients. There is scant published data reporting the prevalence of underrecognized and untreated ECG-detected AF among ventricular-paced patients. Objectives In the first part of this study, we aim (1) to determine the prevalence of AF and unreported AF on ECGs with ventricular-paced rhythm obtained across all 6 hospitals in our city, Canada. Using data obtained from (1), we then aim (2) to report the rates of untreated and unreported ECG-detected AF among ventricular-paced patients with an indication for anticoagulation, (3) to describe the length of delay in AF recognition and treatment among patients who should be considered for anticoagulation at the time of ECG-detected AF and (4) to identify possible strategies that can improve reporting of AF on ECGs with ventricular-paced rhythm using our institutional ECG software. Methods This is a retrospective multicenter review of ventricular-paced ECGs interpreted and reported by physicians using our institutional ECG software. ECGs were reviewed and confirmed by two independent cardiologists who were blinded from the reported interpretation of the ECGs. Results Of the sample of 1500 ECGs with ventricular-paced rhythm from 2017–2019, 2 independent cardiologists agreed that AF was present in 622 ECGs (41.5%). Of these, 251 (40.4%) were not reported to have AF by the interpreting physician. Conclusions Our study shows that there is a high prevalence of unreported AF on ECG in patients with ventricular-paced rhythm in our local hospitals. Further studies are warranted on describing whether this impacts treatment and outcomes among ventricular-paced patients. This study also highlights the importance of identifying possible strategies to improve reporting of AF on ECGs with ventricular-paced rhythm. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→