Back

Explainable Advanced Electrocardiography Heart Age Shows Good Reproducibility in Healthy Young Adults

Warrington, C. R.; Al-Falahi, Z.; Premawardhana, U.; Ugander, M.; Green, S.

2026-03-25 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.03.24.26349147 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aims: Explainable advanced electrocardiography (A-ECG) can be used to estimate heart age from the standard 12-lead ECG. A-ECG heart age gap (HAG) represents the difference between A-ECG heart age and chronological age. Increased A-ECG HAG is associated with cardiovascular outcomes and can be used to communicate risk. The aim was to investigate whether A-ECG heart age demonstrates acceptable within- and between-session reproducibility. Methods: Healthy adults (n=42, age 23+/-4 years, 52% male) attended up to two sessions ~14 days apart, with 36 participants completing both sessions. During each session, five standard resting 12-lead ECGs were obtained while lying in the supine position with unchanged electrode positions. A-ECG heart age was extracted using dedicated software. Within-session reproducibility was assessed using all five recorded ECGs with coefficient of variation (CV) and a two-way random effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Between-session reproducibility was assessed using the first recorded ECG of each session with a paired t-test, CV and ICC. A further analysis assessed the reproducibility of the parameters used in the A-ECG heart age regression model. Results: A-ECG heart age showed excellent within-session reproducibility in session one and two (both CV 5.8%, ICC 0.99). A-ECG heart age was slightly lower in session one than two (24.0+/-7.5 vs. 25.5+/-7.8 years, p=0.04) and showed good between-session reproducibility (CV 8.3%, ICC 0.84). All but one parameter used to estimate A-ECG heart age showed acceptable within- and between-session reproducibility (CV<10%). Conclusion: A-ECG heart age demonstrates excellent within-session reproducibility and good between-session reproducibility in healthy young adults.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.