Can 24 h of ambulatory <scp>ECG</scp> be used to triage patients to extended monitoring?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to long-term ambulatory recording to detect atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited for economical and practical reasons. We aimed to determine whether 24 h ECG (24hECG) data can predict AF detection on extended cardiac monitoring. METHODS: We included all US patients from 2020, aged 17-100 years, who were monitored for 2-30 days using the PocketECG device (MEDICALgorithmics), without AF ≥30 s on the first day (n = 18,220, mean age 64.4 years, 42.4% male). The population was randomly split into equal training and testing datasets. A Lasso model was used to predict AF episodes ≥30 s occurring on days 2-30. RESULTS: The final model included maximum heart rate, number of premature atrial complexes (PACs), fastest rate during PAC couplets and triplets, fastest rate during premature ventricular couplets and number of ventricular tachycardia runs ≥4 beats, and had good discrimination (ROC statistic 0.7497, 95% CI 0.7336-0.7659) in the testing dataset. Inclusion of age and sex did not improve discrimination. A model based only on age and sex had substantially poorer discrimination, ROC statistic 0.6542 (95% CI 0.6364-0.6720). The prevalence of observed AF in the testing dataset increased by quintile of predicted risk: 0.4% in Q1, 2.7% in Q2, 6.2% in Q3, 11.4% in Q4, and 15.9% in Q5. In Q1, the negative predictive value for AF was 99.6%. CONCLUSION: By using 24hECG data, long-term monitoring for AF can safely be avoided in 20% of an unselected patient population whereas an overall risk of 9% in the remaining 80% of the population warrants repeated or extended monitoring.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".