Milestone-Proposal talk:String galvanometer to record the human electrocardiogram: Difference between revisions

From IEEE Milestones Wiki
Line 30: Line 30:


In a private communication to John Vardalas we will bring forward suggestions for reviewers.
In a private communication to John Vardalas we will bring forward suggestions for reviewers.
===Re: Reply to talk of Vardalas -- [[User:Vardalas|John Vardalas]] ([[User talk:Vardalas|talk]]) 18:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)===
: Replace this text with your reply
Though not needed for establishing the validity of this Milestone, it would helpful to the reader if this supporting evidence gives a short summary, perhaps a paragraph or two, on  the role of Cambridge Scientific Instruments. This additional information would satisfy the needs of most readers while also prompting researchers to further examine the archive in Museum Boerhaave. To be clear, from my perspective, this additional information is not required for the approval process, but it would be nice to have in the ETHW public record.


== Review of proposal from Dr. David Geselowitz -- [[User:Vardalas|John Vardalas]] ([[User talk:Vardalas|talk]]) 22:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC) ==
== Review of proposal from Dr. David Geselowitz -- [[User:Vardalas|John Vardalas]] ([[User talk:Vardalas|talk]]) 22:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC) ==

Revision as of 18:40, 3 April 2019

Advocate for this Milestone Proposal -- John Vardalas (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

To the Benelux Section

I will the be advocate within the IEEE History Committee for this Milestone proposal. I must commend the Benelux Section for putting together an excellent proposal. I am confident that, together, we can move this proposal through to approval.

I must select two external expert referees to comment on the proposal. I would welcome any suggestions.

Before I approach the external referees, we should first make sure that we have a good citation. I think that we may have to rework the wording of the citation. I will be in a position to make more concrete suggestions in this matter once I have dug more deeply into the available literature relevant to this proposal. In the meantime, could the proposers answer the following questions. 1) Where was Willem Einthoven's laboratory located? 2) What are the references on which the proposal based its description of Cambridge Scientific Instruments involvement?


John Vardalas, Ph.D. Member, IEEE History Committee

Reply to talk of Vardalas -- Wvetten (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We thank the advocate John Vardalas for his positive response on our Milestone proposal and look forward to cooperate to achieve the approval of it. About adapting the wordings of the citation we are eager as well to improve the text.

For the moment let us answer the questions put forward by the advocate.

Q: 1) Where was Willem Einthoven's laboratory located?

A: Einthoven's laboratory was in the center of the city of Leiden, about 1500 m remote from the Academic Hospital Leiden (nowadays Leiden University Medical Center). Einthoven’s version of the string galvanometer was so heavy that it was very unpractical to transport it to the hospital. Therefore he decided to transmit the electrocardiogram over a telephone wire pair, so that both the galvanometer and the patient could stay in place. The building where Einthoven’s laboratory was in nowadays hosts the National Museum of Ethnology.

Q: 2) What are the references on which the proposal based its description of Cambridge Scientific Instruments involvement?

A: This involvement becomes clear from the exchange of letters between Einthoven and this company. Those letters are in the personal archive of Einthoven. This archive is at the Museum Boerhaave and is available for researchers.

In a private communication to John Vardalas we will bring forward suggestions for reviewers.

Re: Reply to talk of Vardalas -- John Vardalas (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Replace this text with your reply

Though not needed for establishing the validity of this Milestone, it would helpful to the reader if this supporting evidence gives a short summary, perhaps a paragraph or two, on the role of Cambridge Scientific Instruments. This additional information would satisfy the needs of most readers while also prompting researchers to further examine the archive in Museum Boerhaave. To be clear, from my perspective, this additional information is not required for the approval process, but it would be nice to have in the ETHW public record.

Review of proposal from Dr. David Geselowitz -- John Vardalas (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Prof. David Geselowitz is a noted expert in the field. He was elected to the National Academy of Engineering for his “outstanding contributions of engineering theory and technology to electrocardiographic fundamentals and diagnoses”.

His assessment is short but unequivocal.

"I find the proposal excellent. Einthoven's work clearly merits celebration on two scores. One is the development of the string galvanometer. The other is the development of electrocardiography."

Review of proposal from Dr. David Rhees -- John Vardalas (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing this proposal, Dr. David Rhees answered three questions: 1) Is the wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? 2) Is the evidence presented of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? 3) Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? His answers are quoted below.

1) Is the wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?

"The wording of the first sentence implies this was the first electrocardiogram made of a patient in that hospital, whereas I believe the correct intent is to state it was the first successful electrocardiogram made of any patient anywhere.

However, there is another issue. This plaque will be located at the approximate site where the patient was recorded, so it really commemorates the site. As noted in the proposal, the string galvanometer itself was too heavy to be moved to the hospital and was located 1.5 km away in Einthoven’s laboratory. Moreover, there is no actual artifact of the string galvanometer at the site of the proposed plaque (I once visited the Museum Boerhaave, also in Leiden, which I believe has the original device or an early version). Thus, there are 3 potential sites for a plaque: the proposed one in this hospital, the site of Einthoven’s lab nearby, and the Boerhaave Museum. I don’t have a problem with using the approximate site where the patient was recorded, as is proposed, but would recommend that a small exhibit panel be placed close to the plaque with an image of the device at the Boerhaave Museum, a photo of a patient (as is included in the proposal), and additional explanation."

Assuming I am correct, the body of the citation might be amended as follows:

Invention of the string galvanometer electrocardiograph by Willem Einthoven (1886-1927). On this location, in a previous building, the first successful electrocardiogram of a patient was recorded on March 22, 1905 in this hospital, transmitted by telephone line to Einthoven’s laboratory located at [insert location]. The development of the string galvanometer by Einthoven marked the starting point of electrocardiography as a major clinical diagnostic tool. Einthoven, “Father of Electrocardiography”, was awarded the 1924 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine."

2) Is the evidence presented of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation?

"Yes, though mostly primary sources. Would have been helpful to cite secondary sources."


3)Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?

"Absolutely!"


Dr. Rhees is an historian of science and former Director of the Bakken Museum. Located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, The Bakken Museum is the world's only library and museum devoted to medical electricity.

Possible rewording of citation -- John Vardalas (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Since the instrument itself, and hence the recording, was located in Dr. Einthoven's laboratory, which was at some distance from the hospital, I wonder if the word "recorded" could be misleading. Perhaps "taken" is a better verb. I also recommend moving "in this hospital" after the verb to make it clear that the Milestone is for the "first successful electrocardiogram of a patient" and not for the "first successful electrocardiogram of a patient in this hospital" What does the nominator think of the following plaque citation:

Invention of the string galvanometer electrocardiograph by Willem Einthoven (1886-1927), with which the first successful electrocardiogram of a patient was taken, in this hospital, on March 22, 1905. The development of the string galvanometer by Einthoven marked the starting point of electrocardiography as a major clinical diagnostic tool. Einthoven, “Father of Electrocardiography”, was awarded the 1924 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.