ArticleBMC medical education2023
Impact of automatic acquisition of key clinical information on the accuracy of electrocardiogram interpretation: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multimodal Integration of Ambulatory ECG and Clinical Features for Sudden Cardiac Death and Pump Failure Death PredictionmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe accuracy of electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation by doctors are affected by the available clinical information. However, having a complete set of clinical details before making a diagnosis is very difficult in the clinical setting especially in the early stages of the admission process. Therefore, we developed an artificial intelligence-assisted ECG diagnostic system (AI-ECG) using natural language processing to provide screened key clinical information during ECG interpretation.
methodsDoctors with varying levels of training were asked to make diagnoses from 50 ECGs using a common ECG diagnosis system that does not contain clinical information. After a two-week-blanking period, the same set of ECGs was reinterpreted by the same doctors with AI-ECG containing clinical information. Two cardiologists independently provided diagnostic criteria for 50 ECGs, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus or, if necessary, by a third cardiologist. The accuracy of ECG interpretation was assessed, with each response scored as correct/partially correct = 1 or incorrect = 0.
resultsThe mean accuracy of ECG interpretation was 30.2% and 36.2% with the common ECG system and AI-ECG system, respectively. Compared to the unaided ECG system, the accuracy of interpretation was significantly improved with the AI-ECG system (P for paired t-test = 0.002). For senior doctors, no improvement was found in ECG interpretation accuracy, while an AI-ECG system was associated with 27% higher mean scores (24.3 ± 9.4% vs. 30.9 ± 10.6%, P = 0.005) for junior doctors.
conclusionIntelligently screened key clinical information could improve the accuracy of ECG interpretation by doctors, especially for junior doctors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.