Searching for the Best Machine Learning Algorithm for the Detection of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy from the ECG: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is a powerful predictor of future cardiovascular events. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to conduct a systematic review of machine learning (ML) algorithms for the identification of LVH and compare them with respect to the classical features of test sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, ROC and the traditional ECG criteria for LVH. Methods: A search string was constructed with the operators “left ventricular hypertrophy, electrocardiogram” AND machine learning; then, Medline and PubMed were systematically searched. Results: There were 14 studies that examined the detection of LVH utilizing the ECG and utilized at least one ML approach. ML approaches encompassed support vector machines, logistic regression, Random Forest, GLMNet, Gradient Boosting Machine, XGBoost, AdaBoost, ensemble neural networks, convolutional neural networks, deep neural networks and a back-propagation neural network. Sensitivity ranged from 0.29 to 0.966 and specificity ranged from 0.53 to 0.99. A comparison with the classical ECG criteria for LVH was performed in nine studies. ML algorithms were universally more sensitive than the Cornell voltage, Cornell product, Sokolow-Lyons or Romhilt-Estes criteria. However, none of the ML algorithms had meaningfully better specificity, and four were worse. Many of the ML algorithms included a large number of clinical (age, sex, height, weight), laboratory and detailed ECG waveform data (P, QRS and T wave), making them difficult to utilize in a clinical screening situation. Conclusions: There are over a dozen different ML algorithms for the detection of LVH on a 12-lead ECG that use various ECG signal analyses and/or the inclusion of clinical and laboratory variables. Most improved in terms of sensitivity, but most also failed to outperform specificity compared to the classic ECG criteria. ML algorithms should be compared or tested on the same (standard) database.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".