ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Can atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes be properly predicted with electrocardiography and artificial intelligence?
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: The success of ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) varies, often leading to repeat ablation. Reliable prediction of repeat ablation remains challenging. This study aimed to investigate if AF ablation outcomes can be predicted with an electrocardiogram (ECG)-based deep learning (DL) algorithm. Methods and results: We included 865 patients undergoing AF ablation, of whom 163 (18.8%) required a repeat procedure during a minimum follow-up of 572 days. A deep neural network was trained on the raw data of the standard 12-lead ECG obtained within 3 months prior to the index ablation, using stratified nine-fold nested cross-validation. Unfortunately, the model achieved a nested cross-validation area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of only 0.61 (95% CI: 0.57-0.64). For comparison, the same analytic approach achieved significantly higher accuracy for sex classification (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.86-0.89). A random forest model only using clinical variables (age, sex, body mass index, AF pattern) yielded a similar performance for a repeat ablation (cross-validated AUC = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.55-0.63), suggesting limited added value of ECG-based prediction. SHapley Additive exPlanations was used to pinpoint the most relevant ECG segments and highlighted contributions from P-wave, QRS-complex, and T-wave features. Conclusion: The DL model demonstrated limited ability to predict repeat AF ablation based on the standard 10-second 12-lead ECG. Ablation outcomes may be influenced more by non-ECG parameters or require larger datasets or long-term ECG monitor data, and multi-modality inputs to be accurately predicted.
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.