Back

Does ECG-Based AI Detect Aortic Stenosis Beyond Conventional LVH Criteria? An Analysis of the CLIDAS Database

Shimada, T.; Kodera, S.; Sawano, S.; Guan, J.; Saitoh, W.; Wakasa, S.; Ito, S.; Yanagishita, T.; Hayashi, Y.; Shibata, A.; Ito, A.; Otsuka, K.; Higashikuni, Y.; Okamura, H.; Tsujita, K.; Node, K.; Yamaguchi, O.; Makimoto, H.; Kabutoya, T.; Imai, Y.; Nakayama, M.; Sato, H.; Fujita, H.; Kohro, T.; Matoba, T.; Takeda, N.; Fukuda, D.; Nagai, R.

2026-06-08 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.06.07.26355087 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive valvular disease associated with poor prognosis once symptoms develop, yet routine echocardiographic screening is impractical. While artificial intelligence (AI)-based electrocardiogram (ECG) models have shown promise for AS detection, it remains unclear whether they primarily reflect conventional left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) voltage criteria or capture additional ECG features. Methods and Results: We developed a deep learning model using 244,816 ECGs from 51,713 patients across six academic institutions in Japan (CLIDAS database). AS labels were derived from inpatient Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) codes. The model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.849 (95% confidence interval 0.832-0.865) in the independent test cohort, with consistent performance across institutions, sex, and age. At a threshold of 0.1, sensitivity was 79.1%, specificity was 73.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.0%. Conventional LVH voltage criteria (Sokolow-Lyon AUC 0.706; Cornell AUC 0.692) showed lower performance, and adding them to the AI model conferred no incremental benefit (AUC 0.849 vs. 0.847). Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) revealed predominant attention around QRS complexes in limb leads, beyond regions typically assessed in LVH evaluation. Conclusions: This multicenter AI-ECG model demonstrated strong discrimination for AS and captured ECG features beyond conventional LVH voltage criteria. The high NPV supports its use as a rule-out pre-screening tool.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.0%
2
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.3%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.1%
4
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.1%
5
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.7%
7
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.8%
8
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
9
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
10
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
11
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
13
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
14
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.4%
15
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
16
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
17
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
18
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
20
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Nature Cardiovascular Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
22
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%