Interpretations of the electrocardiogram (ECG) are often prepared using software outside the electronic health record (EHR) and imported via an interface as a narrative note. Thus, natural language processing is required to create a computable representation of the findings. Challenges include misspellings, nonstandard abbreviations, jargon, and equivocation in diagnostic interpretations.
Our objective was to develop an algorithm to reliably and efficiently extract such information and map it to the standardized ECG ontology developed jointly by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology Foundation, and the Heart Rhythm Society. The algorithm was to be designed to be easily modifiable for use with EHRs and ECG reporting systems other than the ones studied.
An algorithm using natural language processing techniques was developed in structured query language to extract and map quantitative and diagnostic information from ECG narrative reports to the cardiology societies' standardized ECG ontology. The algorithm was developed using a training dataset of 43,861 ECG reports and applied to a test dataset of 46,873 reports.
Accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1-measure were all 100% in the test dataset for the extraction of quantitative data (e.g., PR and QTc interval, atrial and ventricular heart rate). Performances for matches in each diagnostic category in the standardized ECG ontology were all above 99% in the test dataset. The processing speed was approximately 20,000 reports per minute. We externally validated the algorithm from another institution that used a different ECG reporting system and found similar performance.
The developed algorithm had high performance for creating a computable representation of ECG interpretations. Software and lookup tables are provided that can easily be modified for local customization and for use with other EHR and ECG reporting systems. This algorithm has utility for research and in clinical decision-support where incorporation of ECG findings is desired.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2021.
All research outputs
#15,686,478
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Methods of Information in Medicine
#468
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#248,025
of 434,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods of Information in Medicine
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 434,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
