Cited by 1,389ECG Monitoring and AnalysisArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram

Attia, Zachi I., Kapa, Suraj, Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco, McKie, Paul M., Ladewig, Dorothy J., Satam, Gaurav, Pellikka, Patricia A., Enriquez-Sarano, Maurice +6 more·2019·Nature Medicine

Abstract

Asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction (ALVD) is present in 3-6% of the general population, is associated with reduced quality of life and longevity, and is treatable when found 1-4. An inexpensive, noninvasive screening tool for ALVD in the doctor's office is not available. We tested the hypothesis that application of artificial intelligence (AI) to the electrocardiogram (ECG), a routine method of measuring the heart's electrical activity, could identify ALVD. Using paired 12-lead ECG and echocardiogram data, including the left ventricular ejection fraction (a measure of contractile function), from 44,959 patients at the Mayo Clinic, we trained a convolutional neural network to identify patients with ventricular dysfunction, defined as ejection fraction ≤35%, using the ECG data alone. When tested on an independent set of 52,870 patients, the network model yielded values for the area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 0.93, 86.3%, 85.7%, and 85.7%, respectively. In patients without ventricular dysfunction, those with a positive AI screen were at 4 times the risk (hazard ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.3 to 5.0) of developing future ventricular dysfunction compared with those with a negative screen. Application of AI to the ECG-a ubiquitous, low-cost test-permits the ECG to serve as a powerful screening tool in asymptomatic individuals to identify ALVD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-018-0240-2

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A landmark 2019 study demonstrated that AI-ECG could identify reduced LVEF from routine 12-lead recordings with strong discriminatory performance, establishing the principle that an inexpensive and widely available test could function as an upstream screening instrument for abnormalities ordinarily confirmed by echocardiography.

    “A landmark 2019 study demonstrated that artificial intelligence (AI)-ECG could identify reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from routine 12-lead recordings with strong discriminatory performance, establishing the principle that an inexpensive and widely available test could function as an upstream screening instrument for abnormalities ordinarily confirmed by echocardiography.12”
  • At present, AI-ECG is better interpreted as a tool for risk enrichment and follow-up prioritization in selected screening settings than as a stand-alone mandate for structured surveillance or immediate pathway escalation.

    “At present, AI-ECG is better interpreted as a tool for risk enrichment and follow-up prioritization in selected screening settings than as a stand-alone mandate for structured surveillance or immediate pathway escalation.12,19,44,45”
  • Patients without baseline ventricular dysfunction but with a positive AI-ECG screen had a fourfold higher risk of developing future ventricular dysfunction than those with a negative screen.

    “In the same study, patients without baseline ventricular dysfunction but with a positive AI-ECG screen had a fourfold higher risk of developing future ventricular dysfunction than those with a negative screen.12”
  • In the original Attia et al. study, patients with false-positive low-EF screens had a fourfold higher risk of developing future ventricular dysfunction (hazard ratio 4.1; 95% CI 3.3-5.0).

    “In the original Attia et al study, patients with false-positive low-EF screens had a fourfold higher risk of developing future ventricular dysfunction (hazard ratio 4.1; 95% CI 3.3–5.0).12”
  • Attia et al 2019 found that AI-ECG for reduced LVEF achieved AUC 0.93 and NPV 98.7%, and AI-positive/echo-negative patients had higher future ventricular dysfunction risk.

    “AUC 0.93; NPV 98.7%; AI-positive/echo-negative patients had higher future ventricular dysfunction risk”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Attia, Z. I., Kapa, S., Lopez-Jimenez, F., McKie, P. M., Ladewig, D. J., Satam, G., Pellikka, P. A., Enriquez-Sarano, M., Noseworthy, P. A., Munger, T. M., Asirvatham, S. J., Scott, C. G., Carter, R. E., & Friedman, P. A.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Friedman, Paul A.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2019-01
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
70-74
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W2901226889
Cited by
1,389
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 245 · 2025: 244 · 2024: 225 · 2023: 196 · 2022: 158 · 2021: 146 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 1
FWCI
54.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Mayo Clinic
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 › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, cardiac contractile dysfunction, electrocardiogram, artificial intelligence, convolutional neural networks, left ventricular ejection fraction, deep learning, cardiovascular screening, risk stratification, echocardiography
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Electrocardiography, Female, Heart, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Myocardial Contraction, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stroke Volume, Neural Networks, Computer

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