MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 4367453: External Validation of an AI-ECG algorithm for Occlusive Myocardial Infarction Detection in a General Chest Pain Population

2025· article· en· W4415791550 on OpenAlexaff
Rui Qi Ji, Nathan T. Riek, Dillon J. Dzikowicz, Salah S. Al‐Zaiti

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChest painMyocardial infarctionPopulationAcute coronary syndromeStenosisCohortConventional PCIStentGeneralizability theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Nearly one-third of patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome have an acute coronary occlusion without diagnostic ST elevations (STE) that often goes unrecognized, leading to treatment delays and poorer outcomes. AI-ECG algorithms can identify subtle, clinically under-recognized ECG patterns indicative of occlusive myocardial infarction (OMI). Our team has previously developed a suite of OMI detection AI-ECG models trained on pre-hospital ECGs from multiple sites in the United States. In this study, we externally validate the performance and generalizability of these models in an unselected general chest pain population from the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC). Methods: This was a secondary analysis of ACC Chest Pain-MI Registry at URMC. We included consecutive chest pain patients with available 12-lead ECG data between 2019 and 2023. The ECGs were preprocessed using three previously published AI-ECG models for predicting OMI: a random forest (RF) classifier, a convolutional neural network (CNN), and an RF-CNN fusion model. The primary study outcome was OMI, angiographically defined as coronary stenosis >99% with stent placement or stenosis >70% with stent placement and elevated peak troponin x10 folds. STEMI patients with emergent primary PCI met the primary study outcome. Model performance was evaluated using area under ROC curve (AUC) and average precision (AP). We applied previously identified cutoffs from the derivation cohort for rule-in and rule-out thresholds. Results: The sample included 2,254 patients (age 63 ± 14; 35% female). Overall, 946 patients (42%) had OMI, of whom 22% did not have STE on presenting ECG. Figures 1 shows the AUC and AP for AI-ECG models. The RF, CNN, and fusion models ruled in 760 (34%), 869 (39%), and 944 (42%) patients at precisions of 0.98, 0.95, and 0.92, respectively. The models ruled out 1494 (66%), 1385 (61%), and 1310 (58%) patients at recall of 0.86, 0.91, and 0.94, respectively. At “high confidence”, the RF-CNN fusion model had the best rule out accuracy, identifying 33% of patients for early discharge with an overall missed events rate of 3.5%. The RF model had the best rule in accuracy, identifying 15% of patients for immediate PCI with overall false CATH lab activation rate of 4%. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that our previously developed AI-ECG models for OMI detection generalize well to new unseen data from an external site in the US.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207