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.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.1%
3
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.3%
5
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.1%
6
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
8
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.5%
9
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.0%
11
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.3%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
13
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
18
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
20
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
22
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
26
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
27
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%