ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Physicians and Machine-Learning Algorithm Performance in Predicting Left-Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction from a Standard 12-Lead-Electrocardiogram.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning and electrocardiography: systematic review of current techniques in cardiovascular disease diagnosis and management.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in ECG-based diagnosis of low left ventricular ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Review
- Efficacy of AI Models in Detecting Heart Failure Using ECG Data: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-based identification of left ventricular systolic dysfunction from 12-lead electrocardiograms: external validation and advanced application of an existing model.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology: Why So Many Great Promises and Expectations, but Still a Limited Clinical Impact?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) may prompt early care and improve outcomes for asymptomatic patients. Standard 12-lead ECG may be used to predict LVSD. We aimed to compare the performance of Machine Learning Algorithms (MLA) and physicians in predicting LVSD from a standard 12-lead ECG. By utilizing a dataset of 13,820 pairs of ECGs and echocardiography, a deep residual convolutional neural network was trained for predicting LVSD (ejection fraction (EF) < 50%) from ECG. The ECGs of the test set (n = 850) were assessed for LVSD by the MLA and six physicians. The performance was compared using sensitivity, specificity, and C-statistics. The interobserver agreement between the physicians for the prediction of LVSD was moderate (κ = 0.50), with average sensitivity and specificity of 70%. The C-statistic of the MLA was 0.85. Repeating this analysis with LVSD defined as EF < 35% resulted in an improvement in physicians’ average sensitivity to 84% but their specificity decreased to 57%. The MLA C-statistic was 0.88 with this threshold. We conclude that although MLA outperformed physicians in predicting LVSD from standard ECG, prior to robust implementation of MLA in ECG machines, physicians should be encouraged to use this approach as a simple and readily available aid for LVSD screening.
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.