Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36865584›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular digital health journal2023

Artificial intelligence-enabled mobile electrocardiograms for event prediction in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Ananditha Raghunath, Dan D Nguyen, Matthew Schram, David Albert, Shyamnath Gollakota, Linda Shapiro, Arun R Sridhar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular digital health journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. What Else Can AI See in a Digital ECG?Journal of personalized medicine · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ananditha RaghunathDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Dan D NguyenSt. Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
Matthew SchramAliveCor, Inc., Mountainview, California.
David AlbertAliveCor, Inc., Mountainview, California.
Shyamnath GollakotaDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Linda ShapiroDepartment of Computer Science & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Arun R SridharUniversity of Washington Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
University of Washington · USSaint Luke's Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) often eludes early diagnosis, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been used to predict AF from sinus rhythm electrocardiograms (ECGs), but AF prediction using sinus rhythm mobile electrocardiograms (mECG) remains unexplored. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of AI to predict AF events prospectively and retrospectively using sinus rhythm mECG data. Methods: We trained a neural network to predict AF events from sinus rhythm mECGs obtained from users of the Alivecor KardiaMobile 6L device. We tested our model on sinus rhythm mECGs within ±0-2 days, ±3-7 days, and ±8-30 days from AF events to determine the optimal screening window. Finally, we tested our model on mECGs from before an AF event to determine whether AF can be predicted prospectively. Results: We included 73,861 users with 267,614 mECGs (mean age 58.14 years; 35% women). Users with paroxysmal AF contributed 60.15% of mECGs. Model performance on the test set comprising control and study samples across all windows of interest showed an area under the curve (AUC) score of 0.760 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.759-0.760), sensitivity of 0.703 (95% CI 0.700-0.705), specificity of 0.684 (95% CI 0.678-0.685), and accuracy of 69.4% (95% CI 0.692-0.700). Model performance was better on ±0-2 day samples (sensitivity 0.711; 95% CI 0.709-0.713) and worse on the ±8-30 day window (sensitivity 0.688; 95% CI 0.685-0.690), with performance on the ±3-7 day window falling in between (sensitivity 0.708; 95% CI 0.704-0.710). Conclusion: Neural networks can predict AF using a widely scalable and cost-effective mobile technology prospectively and retrospectively.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligence–based electrocardiographic analysisAtrial fibrillationAtrial fibrillation event predictionMobile electrocardiographyScalable technologySinus rhythm

Identifiers

PMID36865584
PMCPMC9971999
OpenAlexW4317491755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.