MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408169553 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.02.25322575

Foundation models for generalizable electrocardiogram interpretation: comparison of supervised and self-supervised electrocardiogram foundation models

2025· preprint· en· W4408169553 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexis Nolin-Lapalme, A. Sowa, Jacques Delfrate, Olivier Tastet, Denis Corbin, Merve Kulbay, Derman Ozdemir, François-Christophe Marois-Blanchet, François Harvey, Surbhi Sharma, Minhaj Ansari, I-Min Chiu, Valentina Dsouza, Sam Friedman, Michaël Chassé, Brian J. Potter, Jonathan Afilalo, Pierre Elias, Gilbert Jabbour, Mourad Bahani, Marie‐Pierre Dubé, Patrick M. Boyle, Neal A. Chatterjee, Joshua Barrios, Geoffrey H. Tison, David Ouyang, Mahnaz Maddah, Shaan Khurshid, Julia Cadrin‐Tourigny, Rafik Tadros, Julie Hussin, Robert Avram

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMontreal Heart Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Interpretation (philosophy)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) remains a cornerstone of cardiac diagnostics, yet existing artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for automated interpretation often lack generalizability, remain closed-source, and are primarily trained using supervised learning, limiting their adaptability across diverse clinical settings. To address these challenges, we developed and compared two open-source foundational ECG models: DeepECG-SSL, a self-supervised learning model, and DeepECG-SL, a supervised learning model. Methods Both models were trained on over 1 million ECGs using a standardized preprocessing pipeline and automated free-text extraction from ECG reports to predict 77 cardiac conditions. DeepECG-SSL was pretrained using self-supervised contrastive learning and masked lead modeling. The models were evaluated on six multilingual private healthcare systems and four public datasets for ECG interpretation across 77 diagnostic categories. Fairness analyses assessed disparities in performance across age and sex groups, while also investigating fairness and resource utilization. Results DeepECG-SSL achieved AUROCs of 0.990 (95%CI 0.990, 0.990) on internal dataset, 0.981 (95%CI 0.981, 0.981) on external public datasets, and 0.983 (95%CI 0.983, 0.983) on external private datasets, while DeepECG-SL demonstrated AUROCs of 0.992 (95%CI 0.992, 0.992), 0.980 (95%CI 0.980, 0.980) and 0.983 (95%CI 0.983, 0.983) respectively. Fairness analyses revealed minimal disparities (true positive rate & false positive rate difference<0.010) across age and sex groups. Digital biomarker prediction (Long QT syndrome (LQTS) classification, 5-year atrial fibrillation prediction and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) classification) with limited labeled data, DeepECG-SSL outperformed DeepECG-SL in predicting 5-year atrial fibrillation risk (N=132,050; AUROC 0.742 vs. 0.720; Δ=0.022; P<0.001), identifying reduced LVEF ≤40% (N=25,252; 0.928 vs. 0.900; Δ=0.028; P<0.001), and classifying LQTS syndrome subtypes (N=127; 0.931 vs. 0.853; Δ=0.078; P=0.026). Conclusion By releasing model weights, preprocessing tools, and validation code, we aim to support robust, data-efficient AI diagnostics across diverse clinical environments. This study establishes self-supervised learning as a promising paradigm for ECG analysis, particularly in settings with limited annotated data, enhancing accessibility, generalizability, and fairness in AI-driven cardiac diagnostics. Key Question Can self-supervised (SSL) learning yield ECG-based AI foundational models with enhanced performance, fairness, privacy, and generalizability compared to traditional supervised learning (SL) approaches? Key Finding Our evaluation of DeepECG-SL and DeepECG-SSL across seven external health center datasets and four international publicly accessible datasets demonstrated that while both models achieve comparable diagnostic accuracy for ECG interpretation, SSL outperforms SL on novel tasks with smaller datasets. Take-home Message We validated DeepECG-SL and DeepECG-SSL across public and private datasets and demonstrated that SSL model had a superior generalizability by addressing fairness, privacy, and efficiency, and open sourcing our models, we advance ethical, adaptable AI for equitable, real-world ECG diagnostics. Abstract Figure Graphical abstract: DeepECG-SL and DeepECG-SSL, two open-source AI models for 12-lead ECG interpretation, were trained on over 1 million ECGs. DeepECG-SSL, utilizing self-supervised contrastive learning and masked lead modeling, outperformed DeepECG-SL in utilizing digital biomarkers to predict atrial fibrillation risk, reduced LVEF, and long QT syndrome subtypes, while both models achieved high diagnostic accuracy with minimal fairness disparities across age and sex. Validated on ten external datasets, our work provides a robust, reproducible framework for equitable, efficient ECG-based cardiac diagnostics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207