MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125391335 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf1119

Foundation models for electrocardiogram interpretation: clinical implications

2025· article· en· W7125391335 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexis Nolin-Lapalme, A. Sowa, Jacques Delfrate, Olivier Tastet, Denis Corbin, Merve Kulbay, Derman Ozdemir, François-Christophe Marois-Blanchet, François Harvey, Surbhi Sharma, Minhaj Ansari, I Min Chiu, Valentina D'souza, S Friedman, M. Chassé, Brian J. Potter, Pierre Elias, Gilbert Jabbour, Mourad Bahani, Patrick M. Boyle, Neal A. Chatterjee, Joshua Barrios, Geoffrey H. Tison, David W. Ouyang, Mahnaz Maddah, Shaan Khurshid, Julia Cadrin-Tourigny, R TADROS, Robert Avram

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicECG Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMontreal Heart Institute
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthFonds de recherche du QuébecCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)PreprocessorWork (physics)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicECG Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207