MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411024462 · doi:10.2196/73353

Cardiorenal Interorgan Assessment via a Novel Clustering Method Using Dynamic Time Warping on Electrocardiogram: Model Development and Validation Study

2025· article· en· W4411024462 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhan Ye, Bhavna Adhin, Matti A. Vuori, Jari A. Laukkanen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineDynamic time warpingKidney diseaseCardiologyHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionCluster analysisHeart failureInternal medicineMedical diagnosisEjection fractionQRS complexArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The heart and kidneys have vital functions in the human body that reciprocally influence each physiologically. Pathological changes in one organ can damage the other. Epidemiologic studies show that greater than 50% of patients with heart failure (HF) have preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Additionally, one in six patients identified as having chronic kidney disease (CKD) also has HF. Thus, it is important to be able to predict and identify the cardiorenal relationship between HFpEF and CKD. OBJECTIVE: Creating an ECG-enabled model that stratifies HFpEF suspected patients would help identify CKD enriched HFpEF clusters and phenogroups. Simultaneously, a minimal set of significant ECG features derived from the stratification model would aid precision medicine and practical diagnoses due to being more accessible and widely readable than a large set of clinical inputs. Furthermore, validation of the existing cardiorenal relationship using this ECG-enabled model may lead to better biological understanding. METHODS: Using unsupervised clustering on all extractable ECG features from FinnGen, patients with an indication of HFpEF (filtered by LVEF ≥ 50% and NT-proBNP > 450 pg/mL) were categorized into different phenogroups and analyzed for CKD risk. After isolating significant predictive ECG features, unsupervised clustering and risk analysis were performed again to demonstrate the efficacy of using a minimal set of features for phenogrouping. These clusters were then compared to clusters formed using Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) on raw ECG time series electrical signals. Afterwards, these clusters were analyzed for CKD enrichment. RESULTS: PR interval and QRS duration stood out as significant features and were used as the minimal feature set. After generating and comparing clusters (K-means with all extracted ECG features, K-means with minimal feature set, and DTW with full Lead II ECG waveform), the DTW generated clusters were most stable. ANOVA analysis also showed that several HFpEF clusters exhibited a deviation of CKD risk from baseline, allowing for further trajectory analysis. Specifically, the creatinine levels (a proxy for CKD) of several DTW created clusters showed significant differences from average. Based off Jaccard score, the DTW clusters also showed the greatest alignment to baseline comparison clusters created by clustering on creatinine. In comparison, the other two sets of clusters (created by all extracted ECG features and the minimal set) performed similarly. CONCLUSIONS: This project validates both the known cardiorenal relationship between HFpEF and CKD and the importance of the PR interval and QRS duration. After exploring the use of ECG data for patient clustering and stratification, DTW clustering with Lead II waveforms resulted in the most clinically meaningful clusters in the context of HFpEF and CKD. This methodology may prove useful in exploring ECG clustering applications outside of HFpEF as well.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.361 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207