This article has been discussed on Twitter today.  

It purports to show that you don’t need to read the ECG if the computer says “normal”.  Many on Twitter seem to agree.

Safety of Computer Interpretation of Normal Triage Electrocardiograms

The confidence intervals were 97-100%.  Would you like to be 97% sure you’re not missing an emergency?

So I just looked through a few of my blog cases that were read as “normal” by the computer.

Just as an aside: we are just finishing a manuscript studying a deep neural network EKG algorithm.

We compared the new deep neural network (DNN) from Cardiologs technologies(DNN) to Veritas conventional algorithm: Veritas: 364 “normal”; 5 missed emergencies. DNN: 493 normal; 2 missed.

So things will get better as technology advances.

We are not there yet.

Here are the cases:

Subtle Dynamic T-waves, Followed by LAD Occlusion and Arrest

How unreliable are computer algorithms in the Diagnosis of STEMI?

Chest Pain Diagnosed as Gastroesophageal Reflux

It is easy to be led astray by the computer….

This case which I posted on June 12 2017 in response to the article was not my case:

Should Emergency Physicians be interrupted by ECGs that are read as “Normal” by the computer?