Cited by 51Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasECG Monitoring and AnalysisCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies

Multimodal explainable artificial intelligence identifies patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy at risk of lethal ventricular arrhythmias

Open access
Kolk, Maarten Z. H., Ruipérez-Campillo, Samuel, Allaart, Cornelis P., Wilde, Arthur A. M., Knops, Reinoud E., Narayan, Sanjiv M., Tjong, Fleur V. Y., DEEP RISK investigators +7 more·2024·Scientific Reports

Abstract

The efficacy of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with a non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death is increasingly debated. We developed a multimodal deep learning model for arrhythmic risk prediction that integrated late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electrocardiography (ECG) and clinical data. Short-axis LGE-MRI scans and 12-lead ECGs were retrospectively collected from a cohort of 289 patients prior to ICD implantation, across two tertiary hospitals. A residual variational autoencoder was developed to extract physiological features from LGE-MRI and ECG, and used as inputs for a machine learning model (DEEP RISK) to predict malignant ventricular arrhythmia onset. In the validation cohort, the multimodal DEEP RISK model predicted malignant ventricular arrhythmias with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.96), a sensitivity of 0.98 (95% CI 0.75-1.00) and a specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.58-0.97). The models trained on individual modalities exhibited lower AUROC values compared to DEEP RISK [MRI branch: 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.94), ECG branch: 0.54 (95% CI 0.26-0.82), Clinical branch: 0.64 (95% CI 0.39-0.87)]. These results suggest that a multimodal model achieves high prognostic accuracy in predicting ventricular arrhythmias in a cohort of patients with non-ischaemic systolic heart failure, using data collected prior to ICD implantation.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-024-65357-x

Cites

53 of 53 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [24]Higgins, I. et al. beta-VAE: Learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. In International Conference on Learning Representations; 2016 (2016).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kolk, M. Z. H., Ruipérez-Campillo, S., Allaart, C. P., Wilde, A. A. M., Knops, R. E., Narayan, S. M., Tjong, F. V. Y., DEEP RISK investigators, Raijmakers, F. D., Van Der Lingen, A.-L. C. J., Götte, M. J. W., Selder, J. L., Alvarez-Florez, L., Išgum, I., & Bekkers, E. J.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Stanford Cardiovascular Institute (US)
  • Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Tjong, Fleur V. Y.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-06-27
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
14889-14889
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400067888
Cited by
49
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 2
FWCI
14.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
Dutch Research Council (452019308)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Keywords
non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, sudden cardiac death, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, late gadolinium enhancement, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, electrocardiogram, multimodal deep learning, explainable AI, primary prevention, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Aged, Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Artificial Intelligence, Electrocardiography, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Cardiomyopathies, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, ROC Curve, Death, Sudden, Cardiac, Defibrillators, Implantable, 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