Willems J L, Abreu-Lima C, Arnaud P, van Bemmel J H, Brohet C, Degani R, Denis B, Graham I, van Herpen G, Macfarlane P W
University Hospital, Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Eur Heart J. 1988 Dec;9(12):1348-55. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.eurheartj.a062453.
In order to test the diagnostic performance of various ECG computer programs a reference library of ECGs is being established and evaluation methods are being developed in an international co-operative project. A pilot study was undertaken in which 250 validated electrocardiograms (ECG) and vectorcardiograms (VCG) comprising seven diagnostic groups i.e., normal, left, right and bi-ventricular hypertrophy, anterior, inferior and combined infarction have been analysed independently by 11 different computer programs as well as by six cardiologists. A coding scheme was applied to assign individual diagnostic statements to a common set and to obtain combined program and cardiologist interpretation results. Preliminary results indicate that the accuracy of classification by different programs varies widely. Total accuracy varied between 57.2% and 75.8% (median 69.4%). The cardiologists had a higher accuracy (median 74.3%) than the majority of programs, at least when using the standard ECG. As it is considered premature to stress individual program results, in view of the current sample size, the enhancement in diagnostic accuracy obtained by combining interpretation results is highlighted. Indeed combined cardiologist and program results demonstrated the highest accuracy i.e., respectively 78.7% and 76.1%, higher than the result of any individual reader or program. The combined result of the five most accurate programs was 78.4%, that of the six least accurate was 71.5%, which is again higher than the respective individual components. These findings demonstrate that the combination of expert knowledge of computer programs can, similar to panel review and group analysis in clinical practice, enhance diagnostic accuracy.
为了测试各种心电图计算机程序的诊断性能,一个国际合作项目正在建立心电图参考库并开发评估方法。进行了一项初步研究,其中由11个不同的计算机程序以及6位心脏病专家对250份经过验证的心电图(ECG)和向量心电图(VCG)进行了独立分析,这些心电图和向量心电图包括七个诊断组,即正常、左心室、右心室和双心室肥大、前壁、下壁和合并梗死。应用了一种编码方案,将各个诊断陈述分配到一个通用集合中,以获得程序和心脏病专家的综合解释结果。初步结果表明,不同程序的分类准确性差异很大。总准确率在57.2%至75.8%之间(中位数为69.4%)。心脏病专家的准确率(中位数为74.3%)高于大多数程序,至少在使用标准心电图时是这样。鉴于目前的样本量,强调个别程序的结果被认为为时过早,因此突出了通过结合解释结果获得的诊断准确性的提高。实际上,心脏病专家和程序的综合结果显示出最高的准确率,即分别为78.7%和76.1%,高于任何单个读者或程序的结果。五个最准确程序的综合结果为78.4%,六个最不准确程序的综合结果为71.5%,这再次高于各自的单个组成部分。这些发现表明,计算机程序的专家知识相结合,与临床实践中的专家小组审查和群体分析类似,可以提高诊断准确性。