MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413804436 · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2025.08.019

Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram guidance for pulmonary valve replacement timing in repaired tetralogy of Fallot

2025· article· en· W4413804436 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joshua Mayourian, Lynn A. Sleeper, Vedang Diwanji, Alon Geva, John K. Triedman, Rachel M. Wald, Anne Marie Valente, Tal Geva

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthThrasher Research Fund
KeywordsMedicineTetralogy of FallotCardiologyPulmonary valveInternal medicinePulmonary Valve InsufficiencyPulmonary regurgitationHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) in repaired tetralogy of Fallot (rTOF) remains challenging. We hypothesized that pre-PVR artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) may inform optimal PVR timing in rTOF. METHODS: rTOF PVR patients at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH) and Toronto General Hospital (TGH) with analyzable ECGs ≤3 months pre-PVR were included. Patients undergoing PVR were propensity score-matched 1:1 to non-PVR patients. Patients were partitioned into risk tertiles based on pre-PVR AI-ECG probabilities of 5-year mortality: low-, intermediate-, and high-risk. RESULTS: The PVR cohort included 605 patients (504 at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH), 101 at Toronto General Hospital (TGH); median age 20.3 [IQR, 13.6-32.0] years; median follow-up 7.5 [IQR, 4.7-10.6] years; 3.6% mortality). Pre-PVR AI-ECG risk probability was predictive of post-PVR mortality (c-index 0.77), outperforming an established imaging-based model benchmark (c-index 0.70). AI-ECG remained an independent predictor when added to the benchmark model (P < .001) with a higher c-index of 0.84. Survival was similar between low- and intermediate-risk groups (97-98% 15-year survival; P = .6), with increased mortality for the high-risk group (83% 15-year survival; P = .009). The matched cohort demonstrated that PVR was associated with increased survival overall (HR 0.28 [95% CI, 0.13-0.60], P = .001). Exploratory analyses stratified by risk group tertiles showed survival benefit associated with PVR in the intermediate-risk (HR 0.10 [95% CI, 0.01-0.86]; P = .04) and high-risk (HR 0.3 [0.1-0.7]; P = .005) groups, but not in the low-risk group (P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: AI-ECG predicts post-PVR survival in rTOF patients with a PVR survival benefit in intermediate- and high-risk, but not low-risk, groups. AI-ECG may complement imaging biomarkers to determine rTOF PVR timing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Heart Journal→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→