The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improved sex-specific criteria of left ventricular hypertrophy for clinical and computer interpretation of electrocardiograms: validation with autopsy findings.
Abstract
In a previous study of 543 patients we developed, using echocardiographic left ventricular mass as the reference standard, two new sets of criteria that improve the electrocardiographic diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). One set of criteria, which is suitable for routine clinical use, detects LVH when the sum of voltage in RaVL + SV3 (Cornell voltage) exceeds 2.8 mV in men and 2.0 mV in women. The second set of criteria, suitable for use in interpretation of the computerized electrocardiogram, uses logistic regression models based on electrocardiographic and demographic variables with independent predictive value for LVH, with separate equations for patients in sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation. To test these criteria prospectively with use of a different reference standard, antemortem electrocardiograms were compared with left ventricular muscle mass measured at autopsy in 135 patients. Sensitivity of standard Sokolow-Lyon voltage (SLV) criteria (SV1 + RV5 or RV6 greater than 3.5 mV) for LVH was only 22%, but specificity was 100%. The Cornell voltage criteria improved sensitivity to 42%, while maintaining high specificity at 96%. Higher sensitivity (62%) was achieved by use of the new regression criteria, with a specificity of 92%. Overall test accuracy was 60% for SLV criteria, 68% for the Cornell voltage criteria, and 77% for the new regression criteria (p less than .005 vs SLV). We conclude that the Cornell voltage criteria improve the sensitivity of the electrocardiogram for detection of LVH and are easily applicable in clinical practice.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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
Cites
Predictive Value of a Single Diagnostic Test in Unselected Populations
Vecchio, T. J. (1966) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm196605262742104 · Cited by 941
Cited by
Dahlöf, B., Devereux, R. B., Kjeldsen, S. E., Julius, S., Beevers, G., de Faire, U., Fyhrquist, F., Ibsen, H., Kristiansson, K., Lederballe-Pedersen, O., et al. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08089-3 · Cited by 5,407
Self-citationPathophysiology of Sleep Apnea
Dempsey, J. A., Veasey, S. C., Morgan, B. J., & O'Donnell, C. P. (2010) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00043.2008 · Cited by 2,243
AHA/ACCF/HRS Recommendations for the Standardization and Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram
Rautaharju, P. M., Surawicz, B., & Gettes, L. S. (2009) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2008.12.014 · Cited by 1,016
Savard, S., Amar, L., Plouin, P.-F., & Steichen, O. (2013) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.113.01060 · Cited by 505
Metadata
- Authors
- Casale, P. N., Devereux, R. B., Alonso, D. R., Campo, E., & Kligfield, P.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1987-03
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 565-572
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2018392525
- Cited by
- 561
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.94
- 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: Improved sex-specific criteria of left ventricular hypertrophy for clinical and computer interpretation of electrocardiograms: validation with autopsy findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.75.3.565
- The paper
- Casale, P. N., Devereux, R. B., Alonso, D. R., Campo, E., & Kligfield, P. (1987). Improved sex-specific criteria of left ventricular hypertrophy for clinical and computer interpretation of electrocardiograms: validation with autopsy findings. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.75.3.565
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.