MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393662858 · doi:10.2196/52647

Mobile Electrocardiograms in the Detection of Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation in High-Risk Outpatient Populations: Protocol for an Observational Study

2024· article· en· W4393662858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ajay Mittal, Yasmine Elkaldi, S. R. Shih, Riken Nathu, Mark S. Segal

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationObservational studyOutpatient clinicSinus rhythmEmergency medicineInternal medicinePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Single-lead, smartphone-based mobile electrocardiograms (ECGs) have the potential to provide a noninvasive, rapid, and cost-effective means of screening for atrial fibrillation (AFib) in outpatient settings. AFib has been associated with various comorbid diseases that prompt further investigation and screening methodologies for at-risk populations. A simple 30-second sinus rhythm strip from the KardiaMobile ECG (AliveCor) can provide an effective screen for cardiac rhythm abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of performing Kardia-enabled ECG recordings routinely in outpatient settings in high-risk populations and its potential use in uncovering previous undiagnosed cases of AFib. Specific aim 1 is to determine the feasibility and accuracy of performing routine cardiac rhythm sampling in patients deemed at high risk for AFib. Specific aim 2 is to determine whether routine rhythm sampling in outpatient clinics with high-risk patients can be used cost-effectively in an outpatient clinic without increasing the time it takes for the patient to be seen by a physician. METHODS: Participants were recruited across 6 clinic sites across the University of Florida Health Network: University of Florida Health Nephrology, Sleep Center, Ophthalmology, Urology, Neurology, and Pre-Surgical. Participants, aged 18-99 years, who agreed to partake in the study were given a consent form and completed a questionnaire regarding their past medical history and risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Single-lead, 30-second ECGs were taken by the KardiaMobile ECG device. If patients are found to have newly diagnosed AFib, the attending physician is notified, and a 12-lead ECG or standard ECG equivalent will be ordered. RESULTS: As of March 1, 2024, a total of 2339 participants have been enrolled. Of the data collected thus far, the KardiaMobile rhythm strip reported 381 abnormal readings, which are pending analysis from a cardiologist. A total of 78 readings were labeled as possible AFib, 159 readings were labeled unclassified, and 49 were unreadable. Of note, the average age of participants was 61 (SD 10.25) years, and the average self-reported weight was 194 (SD 14.26) pounds. Additionally, 1572 (67.25%) participants report not regularly seeing a cardiologist. Regarding feasibility, the average length of enrolling a patient into the study was 3:30 (SD 0.5) minutes after informed consent was completed, and medical staff across clinic sites (n=25) reported 9 of 10 level of satisfaction with the impact of the screening on clinic flow. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data show promise regarding the feasibility of using KardiaMobile ECGs for the screening of AFib and prevention of cardiological disease in vulnerable outpatient populations. The use of a single-lead mobile ECG strip can serve as a low-cost, effective AFib screen for implementation across free clinics attempting to provide increased health care accessibility. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52647.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.007

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 head0.655
GPT teacher head0.632
Teacher spread0.024 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→