Multimodal deep learning enhances diagnostic precision in left ventricular hypertrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Determining the etiology of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) can be challenging due to the similarity in clinical presentation and cardiac morphological features of diverse causes of disease. In particular, distinguishing individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) from the much larger set of individuals with manifest or occult hypertension (HTN) is of major importance for family screening and the prevention of sudden death. We hypothesized that deep learning based joint interpretation of 12 lead electrocardiograms and echocardiogram videos could augment physician interpretation. We chose not to train on proximate data labels such as physician over-reads of ECGs or echocardiograms but instead took advantage of electronic health record derived clinical blood pressure measurements and diagnostic consensus (often including molecular testing) among physicians in an HCM center of excellence. Using over 18,000 combined instances of electrocardiograms and echocardiograms from 2,728 patients, we developed LVH-Fusion. On held-out test data, LVH-Fusion achieved an F1-score of 0.71 in predicting HCM, and 0.96 in predicting HTN. In head-to-head comparison with human readers LVH-Fusion had higher sensitivity and specificity rates than its human counterparts. Finally, we use explainability techniques to investigate local and global features that positively and negatively impact LVH-Fusion prediction estimates providing confirmation from unsupervised analysis the diagnostic power of lateral T wave inversion on the ECG and proximal septal hypertrophy on the echocardiogram for HCM. In conclusion, these results show that deep learning can provide effective physician augmentation in the face of a common diagnostic dilemma with far reaching implications for the prevention of sudden cardiac death.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".