ArticlePloS one2025
Clinically interpretable electrovectorcardiographic machine learning criteria for the detection of echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Beyond Voltage: Independent Validation of the SV3 + SV4 Criterion for LVH Detection.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2026Article
- Diabetes-Related Alterations in Vectorcardiographic Repolarization Geometry: Insights from Physiological and Machine-Learning Analysis.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (Echo-LVH) is frequently underdetected by traditional electrocardiogram (ECG) criteria due to limited sensitivity. We investigated whether integrating ECG with vectorcardiography (VCG) using a clinically interpretable machine learning algorithm (C5.0) could improve diagnostic performance. We analyzed ECG and VCG data from 664 patients, 42.8% of whom had Echo-LVH. The study introduced three new criteria-Marcos VCG, Marcos VCG-ECG, and Marcos VCG-ECGsp-named in honor of the software used for VCG synthesis, and compared their diagnostic performance against 23 established ECG criteria, including Cornell voltage, Peguero-Lo Presti, and Sokolow-Lyon. Marcos VCG-ECGsp, optimized for higher specificity, was included to evaluate trade-offs in performance. Validation was performed using train/test split and 10-fold cross-validation. Marcos VCG-ECG achieved higher AUC than Cornell voltage in both training (0.81 vs. 0.68, p < 0.0001) and testing (0.78 vs. 0.69, p = 0.04). The new criteria also showed superior sensitivity compared to Peguero-Lo Presti, the most sensitive traditional criterion (73.1%, 62.4%, 55.9% vs. 30.1%, p < 0.0001). While specificity was lower than Cornell (81.1% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.017), it remained acceptable, reflecting a clinically relevant trade-off favoring detection over false positives. In conclusion, integrating ECG with VCG through machine learning enances Echo-LVH detection, delivering superior sensitivity while preserving specificity. The proposed criteria are clinically interpretable, highlight the novelty of combining two electrical spectra, and hold potential to impact routine diagnostic practice.
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.