ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019
Detection of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Using Bayesian Additive Regression Trees: The MESA.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Machine Learning in Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Detection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in detecting left ventricular hypertrophy by electrocardiograph: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- A meta-analytic evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the electrocardiographic Peguero-Lo Presti criterion for left ventricular hypertrophy.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Pooled it
- ECG Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hypertensive Black Africans: Insights from the coArtHA Trial.Global heart · 2026Trial
- Artificial Intelligence in Sports Cardiology: Advancing Cardiovascular Screening and Diagnosis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Comparison of machine learning and conventional criteria in detecting left ventricular hypertrophy and prognosis with electrocardiography.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Identification of cardiac wall motion abnormalities in diverse populations by deep learning of the electrocardiogram.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- An ECG-Based Model for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Detection: A Machine Learning Approach.IEEE open journal of engineering in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Searching for the Best Machine Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy from the ECG: A Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Do We Need New Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy? The Case of the Peguero-Lo Presti Criterion. A Narrative Review.American journal of hypertension · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology and Atherosclerosis in the Context of Precision Medicine: A Scoping Review.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2024Article
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging (CMRI) Applications in Patients with Chest Pain in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Deep Learning-Based Classification and Feature Extraction for Predicting Pathogenesis of Foot Ulcers in Patients with Diabetes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Left ventricular hypertrophy detection using electrocardiographic signal.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Deep learning assessment of left ventricular hypertrophy based on electrocardiogram.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Machine Learning for Electrocardiographic Features to Identify Left Atrial Enlargement in Young Adults: CHIEF Heart Study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Discrepancy between left ventricular hypertrophy by echocardiography and electrocardiographic hypertrophy: clinical characteristics and outcomes.Open heart · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Ability of Peguero-Lo Presti Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Criterion in Severe Aortic Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical applicability and diagnostic performance of electrocardiographic criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy diagnosis in older adults.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Detection of abnormal left ventricular geometry in patients without cardiovascular disease through machine learning: An ECG-based approach.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background We developed a new left ventricular hypertrophy ( LVH ) criterion using a machine-learning technique called Bayesian Additive Regression Trees ( BART ). Methods and Results This analysis included 4714 participants from MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) free of clinically apparent cardiovascular disease at enrollment. We used BART to predict LV mass from ECG and participant characteristics using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging as the standard. Participants were randomly divided into a training set (n=3774) and a validation set (n=940). We compared the diagnostic/prognostic performance of our new BART - LVH criteria with traditional ECG - LVH criteria and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging- LVH . In the validation set, BART - LVH showed the highest sensitivity (29.0%; 95% CI , 18.3%-39.7%), followed by Sokolow-Lyon- LVH (21.7%; 95% CI , 12.0%-31.5%), Peguero-Lo Presti (14.5%; 95% CI , 6.2%-22.8%), Cornell voltage product (10.1%; 95% CI , 3.0%-17.3%), and Cornell voltage (5.8%; 95% CI , 0.3%-11.3%). The specificity was >93% for all criteria. During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 591 deaths, 492 cardiovascular disease events, and 332 coronary heart disease events were observed. In adjusted Cox models, both BART - LVH and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging- LVH were associated with mortality (hazard ratio [95% CI ], 1.88 [1.45-2.44] and 2.21 [1.74-2.81], respectively), cardiovascular disease events (hazard ratio [95% CI ], 1.46 [1.08-1.98] and 1.91 [1.46-2.51], respectively), and coronary heart disease events (hazard ratio [95% CI ], 1.72 [1.20-2.47] and 1.96 [1.41-2.73], respectively). These associations were stronger than associations observed with traditional ECG - LVH criteria. Conclusions Our new BART - LVH criteria have superior diagnostic/prognostic ability to traditional ECG - LVH criteria and similar performance to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging- LVH for predicting events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.