AI-ECG for LVSD detection: a systematic review and first-in-kind multinational head-to-head comparison
Croon, P. M.; Boonstra, M. J.; Allaart, C. P.; Arends, B. K. O.; Dhingra, L. S.; Huang, Y.-C.; Mast, T.; Khera, R.; Kuo, C.-F.; Kwon, J.-M.; Lee, H. S.; Lee, M. S.; van de Leur, R.; Liu, Z.-Y.; Oikonomou, E. K.; Selder, J. L.; Winter, M. M.; Asselbergs, F. W.
Show abstract
BackgroundSeveral artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) models have shown promise in detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), but their head-to-head agreement and performance have not been independently compared within the same cohort. ObjectivesTo compare the performance of published AI-ECG models for LVSD detection in a standardized external cohort and evaluate the fields transparency and reproducibility. MethodsWe systematically reviewed AI-ECG models predicting LVSD and assessed the risk of bias. Authors were invited to share models for external validation in a well-phenotyped registry of patients undergoing routine clinical cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) with cardiologist-adjudicated reports and paired ECGs. Model performance was evaluated in all consecutive patients and a lower-complexity subgroup with 15% LVSD prevalence. ResultsWe identified 35 studies describing 51 models, reporting high (AUROC >0.80) or excellent (AUROC >0.90) performance. The risk of bias is high and primarily attributed to the limited description of development and validation cohort characteristics, as well as the lack of independent external validation. Four groups (from Korea, the United States, Taiwan, and the Netherlands) shared models for independent testing. AUROCs ranged from 0.83 to 0.93 in all patients (n = 1,203; mean age 59 {+/-} 15 years; 450 [35%] female) and from 0.87 to 0.96 in the lower complexity subset. Performance remained consistent across subgroups, with slight decreases in ECGs showing wide QRS complexes or atrial fibrillation. ConclusionsIn this first-in-kind independent validation and head-to-head comparison study, AI-ECG for LVSD detection demonstrated strong performance despite training on disparate populations. However, the limited availability of models hinders independent validation.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
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 97%
- Simple Models Versus Deep Learning in Detecting Low Ejection Fraction From The Electrocardiogram 97%
- Multimodal deep learning enhances diagnostic precision in left ventricular hypertrophy 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automated severe aortic stenosis detection on single-view echocardiography: A multi-center deep learning study 96%
- Artificial Intelligence Methods to Detect Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (AIM-HFpEF) within Electronic Health Records: An equitable disease prediction model 94%
- Clinical presentation, disease course and outcome of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without pre-existing cardiac disease – a cohort study across sixteen countries 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Arrhythmia and Survival Outcomes among Black and White Patients with a Primary Prevention Defibrillator 94%
- High Throughput Deep Learning Detection of Mitral Regurgitation 94%
- Right Ventricular Sarcomere Contractile Depression and the Role of Thick Filament Activation in Human Heart Failure with Pulmonary Hypertension 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Multicenter Evaluation of the Impact of Procedural and Pharmacological Interventions on Deep Learning-based Electrocardiographic Markers of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy 96%
- Prognostic value of compact myocardial thinning in patients with left ventricular non-compaction 94%
- Multiple Biomarkers to Predict Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions 94%
"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.