Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40752407›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2025

Artificial intelligence for prediction of atrial fibrillation in the stroke unit: a retrospective derivation validation cohort study.

Maximilian Schoels, Laura Krumm, Alexander Nelde, Manuel C Olma, Christian H Nolte, Jan F Scheitz, Markus G Klammer, Christoph Leithner, Andreas Meisel, Franziska Scheibe and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Maximilian SchoelsComputational Neurology, Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Laura KrummComputational Neurology, Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin, Germany; Einstein Center for Neurosciences, Berlin, Germany; Institute for Theoretical Biology, Department of Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alexander NeldeComputational Neurology, Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Manuel C OlmaDepartment of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Christian H NolteCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Partner Site Berlin, Germany.
Jan F ScheitzCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Berlin, Germany.
Markus G KlammerCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Christoph LeithnerDepartment of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
Andreas MeiselCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Neuroscience Clinical Research Center, Berlin, Germany.
Franziska ScheibeDepartment of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; NeuroCure Cluster of Excellence, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Michael KrämerBerlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Karl Georg HaeuslerDepartment of Neurology, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Matthias EndresCenter for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Neurology with Experimental Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Partner Site Berlin, Germany; NeuroCure Cluster of Excellence, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christian MeiselComputational Neurology, Department of Neurology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany; Center for Stroke Research Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin, Germany; Einstein Center for Neurosciences, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: christian@meisel.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParoxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) is a major cause of stroke but is often undetected in routine clinical practice. Effective stratification is needed to identify patients with stroke who might benefit the most from intensified AF screening. Several artificial intelligence models have been proposed to predict AF based on ECG in sinus rhythm, but broad implementation has been limited. The most valuable input features and most effective model design for AF prediction are also unclear.

methodsWe developed and tested AF prediction models utilising continuous electrocardiogram monitoring (CEM) recordings from the first 72 h after admission and multiple clinical input features from patients with stroke hospitalised at Charité, Berlin, Germany, between September 2020 and August 2023. We compared different models and input data to identify the best-performing model for prediction of AF. The relative contributions of different input data sources were assessed for explainability. A final model was externally validated using the first hour of monitoring data from the intervention group of the prospective multicentre MonDAFIS study.

findingsThe derivation dataset included 2068 patients with acute ischaemic stroke, of whom 469 (22.7%) had AF, first detected before or during the index hospital stay (366 vs. 103). In predicting newly detected AF, a Bayesian fusion model emerged as best, achieving a ROC-AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.96). Model introspection indicated that HRV was the main driver of the model's predictions. A final, simplified tree-based ensemble model using age and HRV parameters of the first hour of CEM data achieved similar performance (ROC-AUC 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.95). The final model consistently outperformed the AS5F score in a real-world scenario external validation on the MonDAFIS dataset (1519 patients, thereof 36 (2.37%) with AF; ROC-AUC 0.79 vs. ROC-AUC 0.69, p = 4.69e-03).

interpretationHRV appears to be the most informative variable for predicting AF. A computationally inexpensive model requiring only 1 h of single-lead CEM data and patients' age supports prediction of AF after acute ischaemic stroke for up to seven days. Such a model may enable risk-based stratification for cardiac monitoring, prioritising efforts where most needed to enhance AF screening efficiency and, ultimately, secondary stroke prevention.

fundingThis study was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the German Research Foundation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAtrial FibrillationStrokeAgedAged, 80 and overBayes TheoremElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesROC CurveArtificial intelligenceAtrial fibrillationHeart rate variabilityMachine learningPredictionStroke

Identifiers

PMID40752407
PMCPMC12341230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.