ArticleHeart rhythm O22024
Performance of off-the-shelf machine learning architectures and biases in low left ventricular ejection fraction detection.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting ventricular arrhythmia in myocardial ischemia using deep learning.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Estimation of Myocardial Ischemia Severity Using Body Surface ECG.Computing in cardiology · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Blood Potassium at Different Time Cutoffs.Computing in cardiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence-machine learning (AI-ML) has demonstrated the ability to extract clinically useful information from electrocardiograms (ECGs) not available using traditional interpretation methods. There exists an extensive body of AI-ML research in fields outside of cardiology including several open-source AI-ML architectures that can be translated to new problems in an "off-the-shelf" manner. Objective: We sought to address the limited investigation of which if any of these off-the-shelf architectures could be useful in ECG analysis as well as how and when these AI-ML approaches fail. Methods: We applied 6 off-the-shelf AI-ML architectures to detect low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a cohort of ECGs from 24,868 patients. We assessed LVEF classification and explored patient characteristics associated with inaccurate (false positive or false negative) LVEF prediction. Results: We found that all of these network architectures produced LVEF detection area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve values above 0.9 (averaged over 5 instances per network), with the ResNet 18 network performing the highest (average area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.917). We also observed that some patient-specific characteristics such as race, sex, and presence of several comorbidities were associated with lower LVEF prediction performance. Conclusions: This demonstrates the ability of off-the-shelf AI-ML architectures to detect clinically useful information from ECGs with performance matching contemporary custom-build AI-ML architectures. We also highlighted the presence of possible biases in these AI-ML approaches in the context of patient characteristics. These findings should be considered in the pursuit of efficient and equitable deployment of AI-ML technologies moving forward.
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.