The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size. I. Specificity and observer agreement.
Abstract
We evaluated a simplified version of a previously developed QRS scoring system for estimating infarct size using observations of Q- and R-wave durations and R/Q and R/S amplitude ratios in the standard 12-lead ECG. Groups of subjects with a minimal likelihood of having myocardial infarcts and minimal likelihood of having common noninfarction sources of QRS modification were studied to establish the specificity of each of the 37 criteria. Only two criteria required modification to achieve 95% specificity. These 37 criteria form the basis of a 29-point QRS scoring system. A 98% specificity was achieved when a score of more than 2 points was required to identify a myocardial infarct. Fifty patients were studied to determine the intra- and interobserver agreement with this scoring system. Each criterion achieved at least 91% intra- and interobserver agreement. These impressive levels of specificity and observer agreement must be matched by high sensitivity of the scoring system and a good correlation between the point score and infarct size in patients with proven infarcts if the point score is to be useful for detecting and sizing infarcts. Sensitivity and correlation between point score and infarct size are evaluated in later studies in this series. The standard ECG is inexpensive and can be obtained repetitively and noninvasively; its QRS complex may be an important means of estimating the size, presence and location of myocardial infarcts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Maggioni, A. A., Maseri, A., Fresco, C., Franzosi, M. G., Mauri, F., Santoro, E., & Tognoni, G. (1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199311113292002 · Cited by 396
Miller, T. D., Christian, T. F., Hopfenspirger, M. R., Hodge, D. O., Gersh, B. J., & Gibbons, R. J. (1995) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.92.3.334 · Cited by 393
Intermittent Coronary Occlusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction
Hackett, D., Davies, G., Chierchia, S., & Maseri, A. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198710223171704 · Cited by 371
Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size
Roark, S. F., Ideker, R. E., Wagner, G. S., Alonso, D. R., Bishop, S. P., Bloor, C. M., Bramlet, D. A., Edwards, J. E., Fallon, J. T., Gottlieb, G. J., et al. (1983) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9149(83)80069-1 · Cited by 347
Self-citationAssessing heart disease using a novel magnetocardiography device
Beadle, R., McDonnell, D., Ghasemi-Roudsari, S., Unitt, L., Parker, S. J., & Varcoe, B. T. H. (2021) · Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/abe5c5 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Wagner, G. S., Freye, C. J., Palmeri, S. T., Roark, S. F., Stack, N. C., Ideker, R. E., Harrell, F. E., & Selvester, R. H.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1982-02
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 342-347
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2102847612
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size. I. Specificity and observer agreement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.65.2.342
- The paper
- Wagner, G. S., Freye, C. J., Palmeri, S. T., Roark, S. F., Stack, N. C., Ideker, R. E., Harrell, F. E., & Selvester, R. H. (1982). Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size. I. Specificity and observer agreement. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.65.2.342
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.