Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40238120›Full record

ArticleJAMA cardiology2025

Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Prediction of Heart Failure Risk From Single-Lead Electrocardiograms.

Lovedeep S Dhingra, Arya Aminorroaya, Aline F Pedroso, Akshay Khunte, Veer Sangha, Daniel McIntyre, Clara K Chow, Folkert W Asselbergs, Luisa C C Brant, Sandhi M Barreto and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Artificial intelligence in heart failure.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Lovedeep S DhingraSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Arya AminorroayaSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Aline F PedrosoSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Akshay KhunteDepartment of Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
Veer SanghaSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Daniel McIntyreWestmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Clara K ChowWestmead Applied Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.
Folkert W AsselbergsDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Luisa C C BrantDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Sandhi M BarretoDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Antonio Luiz P RibeiroDepartment of Internal Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Harlan M KrumholzSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Evangelos K OikonomouSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Rohan KheraSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Despite the availability of disease-modifying therapies, scalable strategies for heart failure (HF) risk stratification remain elusive. Portable devices capable of recording single-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) may enable large-scale community-based risk assessment. Objective: To evaluate whether an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm can predict HF risk from noisy single-lead ECGs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of individuals without HF at baseline was conducted among individuals with conventionally obtained outpatient ECGs in the integrated Yale New Haven Health System (YNHHS) and prospective population-based cohorts of the UK Biobank (UKB) and the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). Data analysis was performed from September 2023 to February 2025. Exposure: AI-ECG-defined risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Main Outcomes and Measures: Among individuals with ECGs, lead I ECGs were isolated and a noise-adapted AI-ECG model (to simulate ECG signals from wearable devices) trained to identify LVSD was deployed. The association of the model probability with new-onset HF, defined as the first HF hospitalization, was evaluated. The discrimination of AI-ECG was compared against 2 risk scores for new-onset HF (Pooled Cohort Equations to Prevent Heart Failure [PCP-HF] and Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events [PREVENT] equations) using the Harrel C statistic, integrated discrimination improvement, and net reclassification improvement. Results: There were 192 667 YNHHS patients (median [IQR] age, 56 [41-69] years; 111 181 women [57.7%]), 42 141 UKB participants (median [IQR] age, 65 [59-71] years; 21 795 women [51.7%]), and 13 454 ELSA-Brasil participants (median [IQR] age, 51 [45-58] years; 7348 women [54.6%]) with baseline ECGs. A total of 3697 (1.9%) developed HF in YNHHS over a median (IQR) of 4.6 (2.8-6.6) years, 46 (0.1%) in UKB over a median (IQR) of 3.1 (2.1-4.5) years, and 31 (0.2%) in ELSA-Brasil over a median (IQR) of 4.2 (3.7-4.5) years. A positive AI-ECG screening result for LVSD was associated with a 3- to 7-fold higher risk for HF, and each 0.1 increment in the model probability was associated with a 27% to 65% higher hazard across cohorts, independent of age, sex, comorbidities, and competing risk of death. AI-ECG's discrimination for new-onset HF was 0.723 (95% CI, 0.694-0.752) in YNHHS, 0.736 (95% CI, 0.606-0.867) in UKB, and 0.828 (95% CI, 0.692-0.964) in ELSA-Brasil. Across cohorts, incorporating AI-ECG predictions alongside PCP-HF and PREVENT equations was associated with a higher Harrel C statistic (difference in addition to PCP-HF, 0.080-0.107; difference in addition to PREVENT, 0.069-0.094). AI-ECG had an integrated discrimination improvement of 0.091 to 0.205 vs PCP-HF and 0.068 to 0.192 vs PREVENT; it had a net reclassification improvement of 18.2% to 47.2% vs PCP-HF and 11.8% to 47.5% vs PREVENT. Conclusions and Relevance: Across multinational cohorts, a noise-adapted AI-ECG model estimated HF risk using lead I ECGs, suggesting a potential HF risk-stratification strategy requiring prospective study using wearable and portable ECG devices.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceElectrocardiographyHeart FailureAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID40238120
PMCPMC12004248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.