Prediction of incident atrial fibrillation using deep learning, clinical models, and polygenic scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Deep learning applied to electrocardiograms (ECG-AI) is an emerging approach for predicting atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF). This study introduces an ECG-AI model developed and tested at a tertiary cardiac centre, comparing its performance with clinical models and AF polygenic score (PGS). METHODS: Electrocardiograms in sinus rhythm from the Montreal Heart Institute were analysed, excluding those from patients with pre-existing AF. The primary outcome was incident AF at 5 years. An ECG-AI model was developed by splitting patients into non-overlapping data sets: 70% for training, 10% for validation, and 20% for testing. The performance of ECG-AI, clinical models, and PGS was assessed in the test data set. The ECG-AI model was externally validated in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) hospital data set. RESULTS: A total of 669 782 ECGs from 145 323 patients were included. Mean age was 61 ± 15 years, and 58% were male. The primary outcome was observed in 15% of patients, and the ECG-AI model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve of .78. In time-to-event analysis including the first ECG, ECG-AI inference of high risk identified 26% of the population with a 4.3-fold increased risk of incident AF (95% confidence interval: 4.02-4.57). In a subgroup analysis of 2301 patients, ECG-AI outperformed CHARGE-AF (AUC-ROC = .62) and PGS (AUC-ROC = .59). Adding PGS and CHARGE-AF to ECG-AI improved goodness of fit (likelihood ratio test P < .001), with minimal changes to the AUC-ROC (.76-.77). In the external validation cohort (mean age 59 ± 18 years, 47% male, median follow-up 1.1 year), ECG-AI model performance remained consistent (AUC-ROC = .77). CONCLUSIONS: ECG-AI provides an accurate tool to predict new-onset AF in a tertiary cardiac centre, surpassing clinical and PGS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".