Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Reduced lead systems utilizing patient-specific transformation weights have been reported to achieve superior estimates than those utilizing population-based transformation weights. We report upon the effects of ischemic-type electrocardiographic changes on the estimation performance of a reduced lead system when utilizing patient-specific transformation weights and population-based transformation weights.
Method: A reduced lead system that used leads I, II, V2 and V5 to estimate leads V1, V3, V4, and V6 was investigated. Patient-specific transformation weights were developed on electrocardiograms containing no ischemic-type changes. Patient-specific and population-based transformations weights were assessed on 45 electrocardiograms with ischemic-type changes and 59 electrocardiograms without ischemic-type changes.
Results: For patient-specific transformation weights the estimation performance measured as median root mean squared error values (no ischemic-type changes vs. ischemic-type changes) was found to be (V1, 27.5 μV vs. 95.8 μV, P<.001; V3, 33.9 µV vs. 65.2 µV, P<.001; V4, 24.8 μV vs. 62.0 μV, P<.001; V6, 11.7 μV vs. 51.5 μV, P<.001). The median magnitude of ST-amplitude difference 60 ms after the J-point between patient-specific estimated leads and actual recorded leads (no ischemic-type changes vs. ischemic-type changes) was found to be (V1, 18.9 μV vs. 61.4 μV, P<.001; V3, 14.3 μV vs. 61.1 μV, P<.001; V4, 9.7 μV vs. 61.3 μV, P<.001; V6, 5.9 μV vs. 46.0 μV, P<.001).
Conclusion: The estimation performance of patient-specific transformations weights can deteriorate when ischemic-type changes develop. Performance assessment of patient-specific transformation weights should be performed using electrocardiographic data that represent the monitoring situation for which the reduced lead system is targeted.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2012.08.012 | DOI Listing |