4 ms·

It seems to be using ECG, the (correct) springer link is https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-82377-0_44 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100

• elric 1y ago
  Can't read the full article. Abstract mentions 92% accuracy. That could be abysmal depending on how it's calculated? Correctly identifying 92% of heart attacks and missing 8% might be pretty good. But reporting false positives 8% of the time would be awful.
  • bobmcnamara 1y ago
    Even 'return false' would best 92% accuracy.
    • closewith 1y ago
      Yes, global afib prevalence is about 1-2%, so return false would be 98-99% accurate, which is why accuracy is not a metric used to assess medical diagnostics. However, the sensitivity of return false is 0%, which renders it useless (and why sensitivity and specificity are used in this context).
  • absolutelastone 1y ago
    I suspect it's probably worse than that in reality. From a quick search on state of the art ECG results (the full system of leads attached all over your torso) it looks like around 90 percent specificity (True negative rate) and under 50 percent sensitivity (true positive rate). So it's only pretty good at ruling out heart attacks, but still misses them sometimes. But is pretty bad when it comes to false alarms. I think they use it along with multiple other tests and consideration of symptoms in triage at the hospital.