Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38288263›Full record

ArticleJACC. Advances2023

Clinical Applications, Methodology, and Scientific Reporting of Electrocardiogram Deep-Learning Models: A Systematic Review.

Vennela Avula, Katherine C Wu, Richard T Carrick

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Deep learning to predict left ventricular hypertrophy from the electrocardiogram.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vennela AvulaJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Katherine C WuDivision of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University Department of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Richard T CarrickDivision of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University Department of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF MYOCARDIAL DISEASEST32HL007227 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Chulan Kwon, WENDY S POST · 1985 to 2026
$21.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS L30 HL165535NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007227
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe electrocardiogram (ECG) is one of the most common diagnostic tools available to assess cardio-vascular health. The advent of advanced computational techniques such as deep learning has dramatically expanded the breadth of clinical problems that can be addressed using ECG data, leading to increasing popularity of ECG deep-learning models aimed at predicting clinical endpoints.

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to define the current landscape of clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models and examine practices in the scientific reporting of these studies.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models published through July 1, 2022.

resultsWe identified 44 manuscripts including 53 unique, clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models. The rate of publication of ECG deep-learning models is increasing rapidly. The most common clinical applications of ECG deep learning were identification of cardiomyopathy (14/53 [26%]), followed by arrhythmia detection (9/53 [17%]). Methodologic reporting varied; while 33/44 (75%) publications included model architecture diagrams, complete information required to reproduce these models was provided in only 10/44 (23%). Saliency analysis was performed in 20/44 (46%) of publications. Only 18/53 (34%) models were tested within external validation cohorts. Model code or resources allowing for model implementation by external groups were available for only 5/44 (11%) publications.

conclusionsWhile ECG deep-learning models are increasingly clinically relevant, their reporting is highly variable, and few publications provide sufficient detail for methodologic reproduction or model validation by external groups. The field of ECG deep learning would benefit from adherence to a set of standardized scientific reporting guidelines.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedeep-learningelectrocardiographyrisk-prediction

Identifiers

PMID38288263
PMCPMC10824530
OpenAlexW4388506794

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.