ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2024
Simple models vs. deep learning in detecting low ejection fraction from the electrocardiogram.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and temporal validation of a two-stage ECG-based machine learning model for LVEF screening: a Middle Eastern cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Electrocardiography in Practice: A State-of-the-Art Review.Korean circulation journal · 2026Review
- Web-Based Application of Simplified Machine Learning for Detecting Reduced LVEF From 12-Lead ECG.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- A deep learning phenome wide association study of the electrocardiogram.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in ECG-based diagnosis of low left ventricular ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Review
- AI analysis for ejection fraction estimation from 12-lead ECG.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Deep learning methods have recently gained success in detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) from electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms. Despite their high level of accuracy, they are difficult to interpret and deploy broadly in the clinical setting. In this study, we set out to determine whether simpler models based on standard ECG measurements could detect LVSD with similar accuracy to that of deep learning models. Methods and results: Using an observational data set of 40 994 matched 12-lead ECGs and transthoracic echocardiograms, we trained a range of models with increasing complexity to detect LVSD based on ECG waveforms and derived measurements. The training data were acquired from the Stanford University Medical Center. External validation data were acquired from the Columbia Medical Center and the UK Biobank. The Stanford data set consisted of 40 994 matched ECGs and echocardiograms, of which 9.72% had LVSD. A random forest model using 555 discrete, automated measurements achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.92 (0.91-0.93), similar to a deep learning waveform model with an AUC of 0.94 (0.93-0.94). A logistic regression model based on five measurements achieved high performance [AUC of 0.86 (0.85-0.87)], close to a deep learning model and better than N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Finally, we found that simpler models were more portable across sites, with experiments at two independent, external sites. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the value of simple electrocardiographic models that perform nearly as well as deep learning models, while being much easier to implement and interpret.
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.