Development of a machine learning model using electrocardiogram signals to improve acute pulmonary embolism screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Clinical scoring systems for pulmonary embolism (PE) screening have low specificity and contribute to computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) overuse. We assessed whether deep learning models using an existing and routinely collected data modality, electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms, can increase specificity for PE detection. Methods and results: We create a retrospective cohort of 21 183 patients at moderate- to high suspicion of PE and associate 23 793 CTPAs (10.0% PE-positive) with 320 746 ECGs and encounter-level clinical data (demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, and labs). We develop three machine learning models to predict PE likelihood: an ECG model using only ECG waveform data, an EHR model using tabular clinical data, and a Fusion model integrating clinical data and an embedded representation of the ECG waveform. We find that a Fusion model [area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.81 ± 0.01] outperforms both the ECG model (AUROC 0.59 ± 0.01) and EHR model (AUROC 0.65 ± 0.01). On a sample of 100 patients from the test set, the Fusion model also achieves greater specificity (0.18) and performance (AUROC 0.84 ± 0.01) than four commonly evaluated clinical scores: Wells' Criteria, Revised Geneva Score, Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria, and 4-Level Pulmonary Embolism Clinical Probability Score (AUROC 0.50-0.58, specificity 0.00-0.05). The model is superior to these scores on feature sensitivity analyses (AUROC 0.66-0.84) and achieves comparable performance across sex (AUROC 0.81) and racial/ethnic (AUROC 0.77-0.84) subgroups. Conclusion: Synergistic deep learning of ECG waveforms with traditional clinical variables can increase the specificity of PE detection in patients at least at moderate suspicion for PE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".