Integrating Clinical, Genetic, and Electrocardiogram-Based Artificial Intelligence to Estimate Risk of Incident Atrial Fibrillation
Kany, S.; Ramo, J.; Friedman, S. F.; Weng, L.-C.; Roselli, C.; Kim, M. S.; Fahed, A.; Lubitz, S.; Maddah, M.; Ellinor, P.; Khurshid, S.
Show abstract
BackgroundAF risk estimation is feasible using clinical factors, inherited predisposition, and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis. ObjectiveTo test whether integrating these distinct risk signals improves AF risk estimation. MethodsIn the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, we estimated AF risk using three models derived from external populations: the well-validated Cohorts for Aging in Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology AF (CHARGE-AF) clinical score, a 1,113,667-variant AF polygenic risk score (PRS), and a published AI-enabled ECG-based AF risk model (ECG-AI). We estimated discrimination of 5-year incident AF using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and average precision (AP). ResultsAmong 49,293 individuals (mean age 65{+/-}8 years, 52% women), 825 (2.4%) developed AF within 5 years. Using single models, discrimination of 5-year incident AF was higher using ECG-AI (AUROC 0.705 [95%CI 0.686-0.724]; AP 0.085 [0.071-0.11]) and CHARGE-AF (AUROC 0.785 [0.769-0.801]; AP 0.053 [0.048-0.061]) versus the PRS (AUROC 0.618, [0.598-0.639]; AP 0.038 [0.028-0.045]). The inclusion of all components ("Predict-AF3") was the best performing model (AUROC 0.817 [0.802-0.832]; AP 0.11 [0.091-0.15], p<0.01 vs CHARGE-AF+ECG-AI), followed by the two component model of CHARGE-AF+ECG-AI (AUROC 0.802 [0.786-0.818]; AP 0.098 [0.081-0.13]). Using Predict-AF3, individuals at high AF risk (i.e., 5-year predicted AF risk >2.5%) had a 5-year cumulative incidence of AF of 5.83% (5.33-6.32). At the same threshold, the 5-year cumulative incidence of AF was progressively higher according to the number of models predicting high risk (zero: 0.67% [0.51-0.84], one: 1.48% [1.28-1.69], two: 4.48% [3.99-4.98]; three: 11.06% [9.48-12.61]), and Predict-AF3 achieved favorable net reclassification improvement compared to both CHARGE-AF+ECG-AI (0.039 [0.015-0.066]) and CHARGE-AF+PRS (0.033 [0.0082-0.059]). ConclusionsIntegration of clinical, genetic, and AI-derived risk signals improves discrimination of 5-year AF risk over individual components. Models such as Predict-AF3 have substantial potential to improve prioritization of individuals for AF screening and preventive interventions.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults at Primary Care Visits: the VITAL-AF Randomized Controlled Trial 96%
- Leveraging a genetic proxy to investigate the effects of lifelong cardiac sodium channel blockade 96%
- Arrhythmia and Survival Outcomes among Black and White Patients with a Primary Prevention Defibrillator 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Multinational Validation of an Ensemble Deep Learning Algorithm for Detecting and Predicting Structural Heart Disease Using Noisy Single-lead Electrocardiograms 96%
- Simple Models Versus Deep Learning in Detecting Low Ejection Fraction From The Electrocardiogram 95%
- International Evaluation Of An Artificial Intelligence-Powered Ecg Model Detecting Occlusion Myocardial Infarction 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonism Reduces Atrial Arrhythmias Post-Cardiac Surgery and Attenuates Atrial Stress Responses to Cardioplegic Arrest 96%
- Development and validation of imaging-free myocardial fibrosis prediction models, association with outcomes, and sample size estimation for phase 3 trials 94%
- Temporal Patterns of Antithrombotic Therapy and Clinical Outcomes After Atrial Fibrillation-Related Stroke 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.