Cited by 65ECG Monitoring and AnalysisCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesMachine Learning in Healthcare

Electrocardiographic deep learning for predicting post-procedural mortality: a model development and validation study

Open access
Ouyang, David, Theurer, John, Stein, Nathan R, Hughes, J Weston, Elias, Pierre, He, Bryan, Yuan, Neal, Duffy, Grant +16 more·2024·The Lancet Digital Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preoperative risk assessments used in clinical practice are insufficient in their ability to identify risk for postoperative mortality. Deep-learning analysis of electrocardiography can identify hidden risk markers that can help to prognosticate postoperative mortality. We aimed to develop a prognostic model that accurately predicts postoperative mortality in patients undergoing medical procedures and who had received preoperative electrocardiographic diagnostic testing. METHODS: In a derivation cohort of preoperative patients with available electrocardiograms (ECGs) from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (Los Angeles, CA, USA) between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2019, a deep-learning algorithm was developed to leverage waveform signals to discriminate postoperative mortality. We randomly split patients (8:1:1) into subsets for training, internal validation, and final algorithm test analyses. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values in the hold-out test dataset and in two external hospital cohorts and compared with the established Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) score. The primary outcome was post-procedural mortality across three health-care systems. FINDINGS: 45 969 patients had a complete ECG waveform image available for at least one 12-lead ECG performed within the 30 days before the procedure date (59 975 inpatient procedures and 112 794 ECGs): 36 839 patients in the training dataset, 4549 in the internal validation dataset, and 4581 in the internal test dataset. In the held-out internal test cohort, the algorithm discriminates mortality with an AUC value of 0·83 (95% CI 0·79-0·87), surpassing the discrimination of the RCRI score with an AUC of 0·67 (0·61-0·72). The algorithm similarly discriminated risk for mortality in two independent US health-care systems, with AUCs of 0·79 (0·75-0·83) and 0·75 (0·74-0·76), respectively. Patients determined to be high risk by the deep-learning model had an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of 8·83 (5·57-13·20) for postoperative mortality compared with an unadjusted OR of 2·08 (0·77-3·50) for postoperative mortality for RCRI scores of more than 2. The deep-learning algorithm performed similarly for patients undergoing cardiac surgery (AUC 0·85 [0·77-0·92]), non-cardiac surgery (AUC 0·83 [0·79-0·88]), and catheterisation or endoscopy suite procedures (AUC 0·76 [0·72-0·81]). INTERPRETATION: A deep-learning algorithm interpreting preoperative ECGs can improve discrimination of postoperative mortality. The deep-learning algorithm worked equally well for risk stratification of cardiac surgeries, non-cardiac surgeries, and catheterisation laboratory procedures, and was validated in three independent health-care systems. This algorithm can provide additional information to clinicians making the decision to perform medical procedures and stratify the risk of future complications. FUNDING: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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/s2589-7500(23)00220-0

Cites

30 of 30 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 performance frequently approaches but does not surpass specialist-level interpretation.

    “This aligns with broader meta-analytic observations that AI performance frequently approaches but does not surpass specialist-level interpretation5,10-12.”

    From Structural error asymmetry and harm-weighted analysis of ChatGPT versus ICU Physicians in acid–base interpretation: a prospective observational study (2026) · cites this paper as [10]

    The Results compare the ECG algorithm with a clinical risk score, and the Discussion says it outperformed human-interpretable ECG features. Neither section reports a meta-analysis or compares AI performance with specialist-level interpretation. Searches for specialist and expert interpretation found no passage establishing the claimed pattern. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ouyang, D., Theurer, J., Stein, N. R., Hughes, J. W., Elias, P., He, B., Yuan, N., Duffy, G., Sandhu, R. K., Ebinger, J., Botting, P., Jujjavarapu, M., Claggett, B., Tooley, J. E., Poterucha, T., Chen, J. H., Nurok, M., Perez, M., Perotte, A., Zou, J. Y., Cook, N. R., Chugh, S. S., Cheng, S., & Albert, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Ouyang, David
Venue
The Lancet Digital Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
e70-e78
ISSN
2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389425951
Cited by
64
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 4
FWCI
12.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL136390, K99HL157421, R01HL165840, R00HL157421, T32HL007854)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (UG1DA015815)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI178121)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R56LM013365)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
electrocardiogram, deep learning, post-procedural mortality, preoperative risk assessment, prognostic model, 12-lead ECG, Revised Cardiac Risk Index, external validation, medical procedures, mortality prediction, ECG waveform analysis, risk stratification, length of hospital stay, hospital costs
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Electrocardiography, Humans, Prognosis, Risk Assessment

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