ECG reading differences demonstrated on two databases.

Many studies that rely on manual ECG interpretation as a reference use multiple ECG expert interpreters and a method to resolve differences between interpreters, reflecting the fact that experts sometimes use different criteria. The aim of this study was to show the effect of manual ECG interpretati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Electrocardiology Vol. 69; pp. 75 - 79
Autores principales: Gregg, Richard E., Yang, Ting, Smith, Stephen W., Babaeizadeh, Saeed
Formato: research Journal Article
Publicado: W B Saunders 2021 Supplement
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=153954911&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 153954911
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00220736
        1276
      jtl: Journal of Electrocardiology
      issn: 00220736
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 2021 Supplement
      vid: 69
      pid: 1351
      pub: W B Saunders
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        153954911
        153954911
        NLM34544590
        153954911
        10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2021.09.005
        NLM34544590
        153954911
      ppf: 75
      ppct: 4
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: ECG reading differences demonstrated on two databases.
      aug:
        au:
          Gregg, Richard E.
          Yang, Ting
          Smith, Stephen W.
          Babaeizadeh, Saeed
        affil: Advanced Algorithm Research Center, Philips Healthcare, Andover, MA, USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Reading
          Myocardial Infarction
          Bundle-Branch Block
          Arrhythmia
          Electrocardiography
          Human
      ab: Many studies that rely on manual ECG interpretation as a reference use multiple ECG expert interpreters and a method to resolve differences between interpreters, reflecting the fact that experts sometimes use different criteria. The aim of this study was to show the effect of manual ECG interpretation style on training automated ECG interpretation.Methods: The effect of ECG interpretation style or differing ECG criteria on algorithm training was shown in this study by careful analysis of the changes in algorithm performance when the algorithm was trained on one database and tested on a different database. Morphology related ECG interpretation was summarized in eleven abnormalities such as left bundle branch block (LBBB) and old anterior myocardial infarction (MI). Each of the two databases used in the study had a reference interpretation mapped to those eleven abnormalities. F1 algorithm performance scores across abnormalities were compared for four cases. First, the algorithm was trained and tested on randomly split database A and then trained on the training set of database A and tested on randomly chosen test set of database B. The previous two test cases were repeated for opposite databases, train and test on database B and then train on database B and test on the test set of database A.Results: F1 scores across abnormalities were generally higher when training and testing on the same database. F1 scores were high for bundle branch blocks (BBB) no matter the training and testing database combination. Old anterior MI F1 score dropped for one cross-database comparison and not the other suggesting a difference in manual interpretation.Conclusion: For some abnormalities, human experts appear to have used different criteria for ECG interpretation, as evident by the difference between cross-database and within-database performance. Bundle branch blocks appear to be interpreted in a consistent manner.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N