ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Integrating Clinical, Genetic, and Electrocardiogram-Based Artificial Intelligence to Estimate Risk of Incident Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: AF risk estimation is feasible using clinical factors, inherited predisposition, and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis. Objective: To test whether integrating these distinct risk signals improves AF risk estimation. Methods: In the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, we estimated AF risk using three models derived from external populations: the well-validated Cohorts for Aging in Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology AF (CHARGE-AF) clinical score, a 1,113,667-variant AF polygenic risk score (PRS), and a published AI-enabled ECG-based AF risk model (ECG-AI). We estimated discrimination of 5-year incident AF using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and average precision (AP). Results: Among 49,293 individuals (mean age 65±8 years, 52% women), 825 (2.4%) developed AF within 5 years. Using single models, discrimination of 5-year incident AF was higher using ECG-AI (AUROC 0.705 [95%CI 0.686-0.724]; AP 0.085 [0.071-0.11]) and CHARGE-AF (AUROC 0.785 [0.769-0.801]; AP 0.053 [0.048-0.061]) versus the PRS (AUROC 0.618, [0.598-0.639]; AP 0.038 [0.028-0.045]). The inclusion of all components ("Predict-AF3") was the best performing model (AUROC 0.817 [0.802-0.832]; AP 0.11 [0.091-0.15], p<0.01 vs CHARGE-AF+ECG-AI), followed by the two component model of CHARGE-AF+ECG-AI (AUROC 0.802 [0.786-0.818]; AP 0.098 [0.081-0.13]). Using Predict-AF3, individuals at high AF risk (i.e., 5-year predicted AF risk >2.5%) had a 5-year cumulative incidence of AF of 5.83% (5.33-6.32). At the same threshold, the 5-year cumulative incidence of AF was progressively higher according to the number of models predicting high risk (zero: 0.67% [0.51-0.84], one: 1.48% [1.28-1.69], two: 4.48% [3.99-4.98]; three: 11.06% [9.48-12.61]), and Predict-AF3 achieved favorable net reclassification improvement compared to both CHARGE-AF+ECG-AI (0.039 [0.015-0.066]) and CHARGE-AF+PRS (0.033 [0.0082-0.059]). Conclusions: Integration of clinical, genetic, and AI-derived risk signals improves discrimination of 5-year AF risk over individual components. Models such as Predict-AF3 have substantial potential to improve prioritization of individuals for AF screening and preventive interventions.
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.