Cited by 314ECG Monitoring and AnalysisMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Prediction of mortality from 12-lead electrocardiogram voltage data using a deep neural network

Open access
Raghunath, Sushravya, Ulloa Cerna, Alvaro E., Jing, Linyuan, vanMaanen, David P., Stough, Joshua, Hartzel, Dustin N., Leader, Joseph B., Kirchner, H. Lester +14 more·2020·Nature Medicine

Abstract

The electrocardiogram (ECG) is a widely used medical test, consisting of voltage versus time traces collected from surface recordings over the heart 1. Here we hypothesized that a deep neural network (DNN) can predict an important future clinical event, 1-year all-cause mortality, from ECG voltage-time traces. By using ECGs collected over a 34-year period in a large regional health system, we trained a DNN with 1,169,662 12-lead resting ECGs obtained from 253,397 patients, in which 99,371 events occurred. The model achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 on a held-out test set of 168,914 patients, in which 14,207 events occurred. Even within the large subset of patients (n = 45,285) with ECGs interpreted as 'normal' by a physician, the performance of the model in predicting 1-year mortality remained high (AUC = 0.85). A blinded survey of cardiologists demonstrated that many of the discriminating features of these normal ECGs were not apparent to expert reviewers. Finally, a Cox proportional-hazard model revealed a hazard ratio of 9.5 (P < 0.005) for the two predicted groups (dead versus alive 1 year after ECG) over a 25-year follow-up period. These results show that deep learning can add substantial prognostic information to the interpretation of 12-lead resting ECGs, even in cases that are interpreted as normal by physicians.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41591-020-0870-z

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • ECG waveforms contain latent signatures of future mortality risk.

    “Emerging evidence suggests that ECG waveforms contain latent signatures of ventricular dysfunction [4], structural heart disease [5], metabolic abnormalities [6], and broader physiologic characteristics such as biological age [7] and future mortality risk [8].”
  • Cardiologists reviewing selected normal ECGs were unable to reliably identify the mortality-associated patterns detected by the model.

    “Cardiologists reviewing selected normal ECGs were unable to reliably identify the mortality-associated patterns detected by the model [8].”
  • The mortality prediction model maintained strong performance among ECGs interpreted as normal by physicians, with an AUC of 0.85.

    “maintained strong performance even among ECGs interpreted as normal by physicians, with an AUC of 0.85.”
  • ECG-age, mortality-prediction, and disease-specific models illustrate how AI-derived outputs may function as quantitative markers of physiologic risk rather than simple diagnostic labels.

    “As discussed above, ECG-age [7], mortality-prediction [8], and disease-specific models illustrate how AI-derived outputs may function as quantitative markers of physiologic risk rather than simple diagnostic labels.”
  • Raghunath et al. trained a deep neural network using more than 1.1 million 12-lead ECGs from over 250,000 patients to predict one-year all-cause mortality.

    “Raghunath et al. trained a deep neural network using more than 1.1 million 12-lead ECGs from over 250,000 patients to predict one-year all-cause mortality.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raghunath, S., Ulloa Cerna, A. E., Jing, L., vanMaanen, D. P., Stough, J., Hartzel, D. N., Leader, J. B., Kirchner, H. L., Stumpe, M. C., Hafez, A., Nemani, A., Carbonati, T., Johnson, K. W., Young, K., Good, C. W., Pfeifer, J. M., Patel, A. A., Delisle, B. P., Alsaid, A., Beer, D., Haggerty, C. M., & Fornwalt, B. K.
Affiliations
  • Bucknell University (US)
  • Geisinger Medical Center (US)
  • Tempus Labs (United States) (US)
  • University of Kentucky (US)
Corresponding author
Fornwalt, Brandon K.
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2020-05-11
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
886-891
ISSN
  • 1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-170X
OpenAlex
W3104075323
Cited by
314
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 9
FWCI
25.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Geisinger Health System Foundation
  • Geisinger Health Plan Tempus Labs Inc
  • Pennsylvania Department of Health (SAP 4100070267)
  • American Heart Association (17CCRG33700289)
  • Tempus Labs Inc
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
12-lead ECG, all-cause mortality prediction, deep neural network, resting ECG, prognostic stratification, Cox proportional hazards model, cardiovascular risk prediction
MeSH terms
Cardiologists, Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Cause of Death, Electrocardiography, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, ROC Curve, Proportional Hazards Models, Neural Networks, Computer, Risk Assessment, Area Under Curve

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