MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416753071 · doi:10.1101/2025.11.24.25340932

Prediction of Pulmonary Vein Isolation and Gap Recurrence on 12-Lead ECG Using Deep Learning

2025· preprint· W4416753071 on OpenAlexaff
I. Liu, Meichen Liu, Isabelle Ah-Sen, Wenteng Hou, Habib Khan, Christopher C. Cheung, Lorne J. Gula, Anthony Tang, Jaimie Manlucu, Peter Leong‐Sit, Allan C. Skanes, Raymond Yee, Pavel Antiperovitch

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity HospitalHealth Sciences CentreLondon Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary veinAtrial fibrillationReceiver operating characteristicDeep learningElectrocardiographyDemographicsConvolutional neural networkDiastole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is key to atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, but arrhythmia often recurs due to conduction gaps permitting pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection. Currently, gap identification requires invasive remapping. We evaluated whether deep learning applied to surface electrocardiograms (ECGs) could (i) detect the electrophysiologic signature of PVI and (ii) predict PV reconnection at redo ablation. Methods We retrospectively studied 176 patients (2012–2023) who had initial PVI and repeat ablation. A total of 865 10-second 12-lead ECGs were extracted from GE MUSE and CardioLab systems, segmented into 1-2 second clips, and used to train ResNet-based convolutional neural networks. Separate models were developed for: (i) PVI detection (pre-vs. post-ablation ECGs) and (ii) gap prediction using pre-redo ECGs. Demographic features were tested alone and in multimodal fusion with ECGs. Performance was evaluated using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity with stratified cross-validation. Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) assessed feature importance. Results The best PVI detection model distinguished ECGs before and after PVI with the area under the ROC (AUROC) = 0.879. Grad-CAM localized attention to the diastolic period and P-wave morphology. For gap prediction, the model trained on pre-redo ECGs achieved an AUROC of 0.819 (sensitivity 77.5%, specificity 75.8%). Adding demographics improved the AUROC to 0.830 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 72%), whereas demographics alone performed no better than chance (AUROC = <50%). Feature importance analysis highlighted P-wave onset and offset, inter-ablation time interval, left atrial volume index, age, and left ventricular ejection function as the strongest contributors in gap prediction. Conclusions Deep learning identifies a consistent ECG biosignature of acute PVI and predicts PV reconnection before redo ablation with moderate accuracy, primarily using P-wave morphology. These models may inform patient selection, procedural planning, and counselling in patients with recurrent AF after PVI. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE What is Known Arrhythmia recurrence post-pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are commonly caused by conduction gaps in the PV, and repeat isolation procedures lead to better arrhythmia-free survival compared to if recurrences are due to extrapulmonary triggers with chronically isolated veins. Currently, there are no non-invasive methods to detect conduction gaps after PVI. What the Study Adds Our deep learning models can predict the presence of conduction gaps from non-invasive surface electrocardiograms prior to repeat procedures with moderate accuracy. We identified important ECG and demographic features in predicting gap presence. Ultimately, we provide potential methods of risk-stratifying patients and selecting candidates for repeat procedures that can be accessed in outpatient settings.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→