Towards artificial intelligence-based learning health system for population-level mortality prediction using electrocardiograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feasibility and value of linking electrocardiogram (ECG) data to longitudinal population-level administrative health data to facilitate the development of a learning healthcare system has not been fully explored. We developed ECG-based machine learning models to predict risk of mortality among patients presenting to an emergency department or hospital for any reason. Using the 12-lead ECG traces and measurements from 1,605,268 ECGs from 748,773 healthcare episodes of 244,077 patients (2007-2020) in Alberta, Canada, we developed and validated ResNet-based Deep Learning (DL) and gradient boosting-based XGBoost (XGB) models to predict 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality. The models for 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality were trained on 146,173, 141,072, and 111,020 patients and evaluated on 97,144, 89,379, and 55,650 patients, respectively. In the evaluation cohort, 7.6%, 17.3%, and 32.9% patients died by 30-days, 1-year, and 5-years, respectively. ResNet models based on ECG traces alone had good-to-excellent performance with area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.843 (95% CI: 0.838-0.848), 0.812 (0.808-0.816), and 0.798 (0.792-0.803) for 30-day, 1-year and 5-year prediction, respectively; and were superior to XGB models based on ECG measurements with AUROC of 0.782 (0.776-0.789), 0.784 (0.780-0.788), and 0.746 (0.740-0.751). This study demonstrates the validity of ECG-based DL mortality prediction models at the population-level that can be leveraged for prognostication at point of care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".