ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Identifying Ventricular Dysfunction Indicators in Electrocardiograms via Artificial Intelligence-Driven Analysis.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing single-lead ECG axis for AI-based detection of myocardial diseases.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- Advances in AI Technology in Healthcare.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies highlight artificial intelligence's ability to identify ventricular dysfunction via electrocardiograms (ECGs); however, specific indicative waveforms remain unclear. This study analysed ECG and echocardiography data from 17,422 cases in Japan and Germany. We developed 10-layer convolutional neural networks to detect left ventricular ejection fractions below 50%, using four-fold cross-validation. Model performance, evaluated among different ECG configurations (3 s strips, single-beat, and two-beat overlay) and segments (PQRST, QRST, P, QRS, and PQRS), showed two-beat ECGs performed best, followed by single-beat models, surpassing 3 s models in both internal and external validations. Single-beat models revealed limb leads, particularly I and aVR, as most indicative of dysfunction. An analysis indicated segments from QRS to T-wave were most revealing, with P segments enhancing model performance. This study confirmed that dual-beat ECGs enabled the most precise ventricular function classification, and segments from the P- to T-wave in ECGs were more effective for assessing ventricular dysfunction, with leads I and aVR offering higher diagnostic utility.
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.