The 12 lead ECG was taken in athletes on the fourth week during the same time of the day, and QRS wave amplitude was measured in them using Minnesota code of ECG classification.
Minnesota code of classification for High Amplitude R Waves 
CVD was defined as previous myocardial infarction, previous stroke, previous coronary revascularization, congestive heart failure [self-reported heart failure or increased N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations], NT-proBNP >210 pg/mL in men or >250 pg/mL in women (12,13), a pathologic 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) [ST-segment depression (Minnesota codes
4-1 and 4-2), T-wave inversion (Minnesota codes
5-1, 5-2, or 5-3), pathologic Q waves (Minnesota code
1-1), or left bundle branch block (Minnesota code
7-1)] (14), or ECG evidence of left-ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, if information was available.
Electrocardiographic findings were classified according to Minnesota code
So, he sought a declaratory judgment to raise these issues, which seemed to be prohibited from campaign discussion under the Minnesota Code
of Judicial Conduct by which he was bound.
"The court noted that the only issue in White was whether the 'announce clause' of the Minnesota Code
of Judicial Conduct was constitutional," JEAC said.
(89) In 1974, the Minnesota Code
of Judicial Conduct set forth for the first time a canon prohibiting all candidates for judicial office from "announcing" their views on disputed legal or political issues while campaigning for election.
ECG abnormality(a) 1.1 Major Q/QS pattern 1.1-1.3 Total Q/QS pattern 4.3 ST junction depression of <0.5 mm 4.1-4.4 Total ST junction depression 5.3 T wave inversion of <1 mm 5.1 - 5.3 Total T wave inversion Sex Men Women (n = 488) (n = 708) Difference Minnesota code
n % n % (P-value) 1.1 17 4 6 1 <0.01 1.1-1.3 63 13 59 8 0.01 4.3 26 5 70 10 <0.01 4.1-4.4 68 14 163 23 <0.01 5.3 62 13 127 18 0.01 5.1 - 5.3 116 24 222 32 <0.01 (a) ECG recording was not obtained from two men and nine women.
Supreme Court held that the "announce clause" of the Minnesota Code
of Judicial Conduct was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment.
The State of Minnesota arguably could not sidestep the Supreme Court by replacing its code with that of the fundamentally identical code of the State of Florida; neither can the State of Florida reasonably believe the decision of the Supreme Court has no impact on it because its code has an identical meaning to that of the Minnesota code
but utilizes insignificantly different wording.
The department's commissioner would also have to adopt a performance-based state plumbing code consistent with the state's other model codes, as opposed to the current board's 2011 decision to replace its homegrown code with a model one that's inconsistent with other Minnesota codes
Minor EGG changes are those defined in Minnesota codes
4-3 and -4, and 5-3 and -4.