The algorithm's performance shows varying sensitivity across arrhythmia types, with ventricular fibrillation having the lowest sensitivity at 79.5%—meaning roughly 1 in 5 VF events would be missed (a negative/ false negative). This would ordinarily be deeply concerning for a life-threatening arrhythmia. However, the investigators make a clinically reassuring observation: all VF events "missed" by the algorithm were actually classified as ventricular tachycardia instead. Since both VF and VT require immediate intervention (defibrillation or cardioversion), this misclassification between two lethal arrhythmias would not result in delayed treatment—the alarm would still sound, just with a different label.
This is an example of a "clinically acceptable" false negative pattern since the alarm will still sound and the clinician will take the right action though under a "false alarm" label.
Wow. Whats about false negatives? So smart, thanks!
The algorithm's performance shows varying sensitivity across arrhythmia types, with ventricular fibrillation having the lowest sensitivity at 79.5%—meaning roughly 1 in 5 VF events would be missed (a negative/ false negative). This would ordinarily be deeply concerning for a life-threatening arrhythmia. However, the investigators make a clinically reassuring observation: all VF events "missed" by the algorithm were actually classified as ventricular tachycardia instead. Since both VF and VT require immediate intervention (defibrillation or cardioversion), this misclassification between two lethal arrhythmias would not result in delayed treatment—the alarm would still sound, just with a different label.
This is an example of a "clinically acceptable" false negative pattern since the alarm will still sound and the clinician will take the right action though under a "false alarm" label.