Interpreting Wide-Complex Tachycardia With the Use of Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adopting artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine may improve speed and accuracy in patient diagnosis. We sought to develop an AI algorithm to interpret wide-complex tachycardia (WCT) electrocardiograms (ECGs) and compare its diagnostic accuracy with that of cardiologists. METHODS: Using 3330 WCT ECGs (2906 supraventricular tachycardia [SVT] and 424 ventricular tachycardia [VT]), we created a training/validation (3131) and a test set (199 ECGs). A convolutional neural network structure using a modification of differentiable architecture search was developed to differentiate between SVT and VT. RESULTS: The mean accuracy of electrophysiology (EP) cardiologists was 92.5% with sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 93.4%, positive predictive value 93.7%, and negative predictive value 91.7%. Non-EP cardiologists had an accuracy of 73.2 ± 14.4% with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 59.8 ± 18.2%, 93.8 ± 3.7%, 93.6 ± 2.3%, and 73.2 ± 14.4%, respectively. AI had superior sensitivity and accuracy (91.9% and 93.0%, respectively) than non-EP cardiologists and similar performance compared with EP cardiologists. Mean time to interpret each ECG varied from 10.1 to 13.8 seconds for EP cardiologists and from 3.1 to 16.6 seconds for non-EP cardiologists. AI required a mean of 0.0092 ± 0.0035 seconds for each ECG interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: AI appears to diagnose WCT with accuracy superior to non-EP cardiologists and similar to EP cardiologists. Using AI to assist with ECG interpretations may improve patient care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".