 |
|
Computerized Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Dr Hurst makes numerous excellent points in his piece What Do Good Doctors Try To Do?,1 including offering that "current computer interpretation of the electrocardiogram has failed us" and that "computer-generated interpretation removed the stimulus for some doctors to learn how to interpret tracings." As a former resident and current fellow, I face every day the computerized readout, and in a maneuver familiar to any student and house staff determined to learn and avoid being misled, fold back the top portion of the printout, where the computer diagnosis is printed. However, this technology should not be completely dismissed. We still miss too many myocardial infarctions (MIs), and newer techniques, such as artificial neural networks, may enhance our diagnostic accuracy.
In most studies, computers have performed poorly, correctly interpreting 58% to 94% of nonrhythm abnormalities compared with human expert interpreters.2 However, uniform criteria for evaluating computers and physician interpreters do . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Lars H. Lund, MD
Correspondence: Dr Lund, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 622 W 168th St, PH12-1273, New York, NY (LL604@columbia.edu).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Computerized Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram—Reply
J. Willis Hurst
Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(15):1698-1699.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
What Do Good Doctors Try To Do?
J. Willis Hurst
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(22):2681-2686.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
