ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2024
Artificial intelligence to detect noise events in remote monitoring data.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2024. 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.
- Artificial intelligence to detect noise events in remote monitoring data.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) can detect various events early. However, the diagnostic ability of CIEDs has not been sufficient, especially for lead failure. The first notification of lead failure was almost noise events, which were detected as arrhythmia by the CIED. A human must analyze the intracardiac electrogram to accurately detect lead failure. However, the number of arrhythmic events is too large for human analysis. Artificial intelligence (AI) seems to be helpful in the early and accurate detection of lead failure before human analysis. Objective: To test whether a neural network can be trained to precisely identify noise events in the intracardiac electrogram of RM data. Methods: We analyzed 21 918 RM data consisting of 12 925 and 1884 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively. Among these, 153 and 52 Medtronic and Boston Scientific data, respectively, were diagnosed as noise events by human analysis. In Medtronic, 306 events, including 153 noise events and randomly selected 153 out of 12 692 nonnoise events, were analyzed in a five-fold cross-validation with a convolutional neural network. The Boston Scientific data were analyzed similarly. Results: The precision rate, recall rate, F1 score, accuracy rate, and the area under the curve were 85.8 ± 4.0%, 91.6 ± 6.7%, 88.4 ± 2.0%, 88.0 ± 2.0%, and 0.958 ± 0.021 in Medtronic and 88.4 ± 12.8%, 81.0 ± 9.3%, 84.1 ± 8.3%, 84.2 ± 8.3% and 0.928 ± 0.041 in Boston Scientific. Five-fold cross-validation with a weighted loss function could increase the recall rate. Conclusions: AI can accurately detect noise events. AI analysis may be helpful for detecting lead failure events early and accurately.
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.