Wearable Electrocardiogram Technology: Help or Hindrance to the Modern Doctor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlabelled: Electrocardiography is an essential tool in the arsenal of medical professionals, Traditionally, patients have been required to meet health care practitioners in person to have an electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded and interpreted. This may result in paroxysmal arrhythmias being missed, as well as decreased patient convenience, and thus reduced uptake. The advent of wearable ECG devices built into consumer smartwatches has allowed unparalleled access to ECG monitoring for patients. Not only are these modern devices more portable than traditional Holter monitors, but with the addition of artificial intelligence (AI)-led rhythm interpretation, diagnostic accuracy is improved greatly when compared with conventional ECG-machine interpretation. The improved wearability may also translate into increased rates of detected arrhythmias. Despite the many positives, wearable ECG technology brings with it its own challenges. Diagnostic accuracy, managing patient expectations and limitations, and incorporating home ECG monitoring into clinical guidelines have all arisen as challenges for the modern clinician. Decentralized monitoring and patient alerts to supposed arrhythmias have the potential to increase patient anxiety and health care visitations (and therefore costs). To better obtain meaningful data from these devices, provide optimal patient care, and provide meaningful explanations to patients, providers need to understand the basic sciences underpinning these devices, how these relate to the surface ECG, and the implications in diagnostic accuracy. This review article examines the underlying physiological principles of electrocardiography, as well as examines how wearable ECGs have changed the clinical landscape today, where their limitations lie, and what clinicians can expect in the future with their increasing use.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".