Foundation models for electrocardiogram interpretation: clinical implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: 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 (SL), which requires extensive labelled datasets and may limit adaptability across diverse clinical settings. Self-supervised learning (SSL) can potentially overcome these limitations by learning robust representations from unlabelled data. To address these challenges, this study developed and compared two open-source foundational ECG models: DeepECG-SL, a supervised multilabel ECG model, and DeepECG-SSL, a self-supervised 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 leveraged unlabelled data through self-supervised contrastive learning and masked lead modelling before fine-tuning for downstream tasks, while DeepECG-SL was trained directly on labelled diagnostic data in an end-to-end fashion. Performance was evaluated across seven private, multilingual healthcare systems and four public ECG repositories, with assessment of fairness by age and sex, and investigation of privacy vulnerabilities as well as memory and compute requirements. RESULTS: DeepECG-SSL achieved micro-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) across all 77 cardiac conditions for ECG interpretation of 0.990 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.990, 0.990] on the internal dataset (MHI-ds), 0.981 (95% CI: 0.981, 0.981) on external public datasets (UKB, CLSA, MIMIC-IV and PTB), and 0.983 (95% CI: 0.983, 0.983) on external private datasets (UW, UCSF, JGH, NYP, MGH, CSH and CHUM), 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, 0.984), respectively. Fairness analyses revealed minimal disparities (true-positive rate and false-positive rate difference <0.1) across age and sex groups for both models. DeepECG-SSL demonstrated superior performance on limited-data digital biomarker tasks, with the largest improvements in long QT syndrome (LQTS) genotype classification (AUROC 0.931 vs 0.850, P = .026, n = 127 ECGs) and 5 year atrial fibrillation risk prediction (AUROC 0.742 vs 0.734, P < 0.001, n = 132 050 ECGs), while achieving superior performance in left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% classification (AUROC 0.926 vs 0.917, P < 0.001, n = 25 252 ECGs) and comparable performance in LQTS detection (AUROC 0.767 vs 0.735, P = 0.117, n = 934 ECGs). CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes SSL as a promising paradigm for ECG analysis, particularly in settings with limited annotated data, enhancing accessibility, generalizability, and fairness in AI-driven cardiac diagnostics. By releasing model weights, preprocessing tools, and validation code, this work aims to support robust, data-efficient AI diagnostics across diverse clinical environments and questions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it