Cited by 8ECG Monitoring and AnalysisArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

Artificial Intelligence–Enhanced Electrocardiography Identifies Patients with Normal Ejection Fraction at Risk of Worse Outcomes

Open access
Naser, Jwan A., Lee, Eunjung, Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco, Noseworthy, Peter A., Latif, Omar S., Friedman, Paul A., Lin, Grace, Oh, Jae K. +4 more·2024·JACC: Advances

Abstract

Background: An artificial intelligence (AI)-based electrocardiogram (ECG) model identifies patients with a higher likelihood of low ejection fraction (EF). Patients with an abnormal AI-ECG score but normal EF (false positives; FP) more often developed future low EF. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate echocardiographic characteristics and all-cause mortality risk in FP patients. Methods: Patients with transthoracic echocardiography and ECG were classified retrospectively into FP, true negatives (TN) (EF ≥50%, normal AI-ECG), true positives (TP) (EF <50%, abnormal AI-ECG), or false negatives (FN) (EF <50%, normal AI-ECG). Echocardiographic abnormalities included systolic and diastolic left ventricular function, valve disease, estimated pulmonary pressures, and right heart parameters. Cox regression was used to assess factors associated with all-cause mortality. Results: Of 100,586 patients (median age 63 years; 45.5% females), 79% were TN, 7% FP, 5% FN, and 8% TP. FPs had more echocardiographic abnormalities than TN but less than FN or TP patients. An echocardiographic abnormality was present in 97% of FPs. Over median 2.7 years, FPs had increased mortality risk (age and sex-adjusted HR: 1.64 [95% CI: 1.55-1.73]) vs TN. Age and sex-adjusted mortality was higher in FP with abnormal echocardiography than FP with normal echocardiography and to TN regardless of echocardiography result; FP with normal echocardiography had comparable mortality risk to TN with abnormal echocardiography. Conclusions: FP patients were more likely than TNs to have echocardiographic abnormalities with 97% of exams showing an abnormality. FP patients had higher mortality rates, especially when their echocardiograms also had an abnormality; the concomitant use of AI ECG and echocardiography helps in stratifying risk in patients with normal LVEF.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101179

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI-ECG may identify a broader latent cardiac phenotype rather than merely detect current low ejection fraction.

    “This suggests that AI-ECG may identify a broader latent cardiac phenotype rather than merely detect current low ejection fraction.”
  • Patients with abnormal AI-ECG results despite normal contemporaneous systolic function were more likely to have other structural abnormalities or worse outcomes compared with true-negative patients.

    “In outcome-focused analyses, patients with abnormal AI-ECG results despite normal contemporaneous systolic function were more likely to have other structural abnormalities or worse outcomes compared with true-negative patients [22].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naser, J. A., Lee, E., Lopez-Jimenez, F., Noseworthy, P. A., Latif, O. S., Friedman, P. A., Lin, G., Oh, J. K., Scott, C. G., Pislaru, S. V., Attia, Z. I., & Pellikka, P. A.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Pellikka, Patricia A.
Venue
JACC: Advances
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-09
Volume
3
Issue
9
Pages
101179
ISSN
2772-963X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401943881
Cited by
8
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JACC Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
normal ejection fraction, false positives, all-cause mortality, echocardiographic abnormalities, left ventricular function, risk stratification, transthoracic echocardiography, left ventricular ejection fraction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review