ArticleCJC pediatric and congenital heart disease2026
Clinician Performance in Training Data Curation for an Arrhythmia Machine Learning Model: Is Anyone Qualified?
Article in CJC pediatric and congenital heart disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Arrhythmia identification in the intensive care unit (ICU) is important to prevent ICU morbidity and mortality. Timely arrhythmia detection relies on bedside providers' telemetry interpretation. Machine learning models can function as clinical support tools to facilitate diagnoses. Machine learning model development requires well-curated training data. The differential performance between labelers of different roles and experience is currently unknown. Methods: This was a prospective observational study with frontline providers. A total of 300 (200 original and 100 duplicate) telemetry tracings were labeled as sinus rhythm, second-/third-degree atrioventricular block, junctional ectopic tachycardia, ectopic atrial tachycardia, and reentrant supraventricular tachycardia. Inter-rater reliability was calculated against the ground truth label (read by an electrophysiologist, AB) as the primary performance measure (intrarater reliability for consistency using duplicate labels). Results: A total of 11 participants completed the study: 1 cardiology fellow, 4 pediatric ICU fellows, 2 pediatric cardiac ICU fellows, 3 pediatric cardiac ICU nurse practitioners, and 1 pediatrics resident. The highest level of agreement was moderate (κ = 0.68, Conclusions: Overall, frontline provider performance was suboptimal, especially for complex arrhythmia classes. These findings highlight the need for thoughtful consideration in labeler training and validate the need for a clinical decision support tool in arrhythmia detection.
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.