Simple models vs. deep learning in detecting low ejection fraction from the electrocardiogram.

Deep learning methods have recently gained success in detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) from electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms. Despite their high level of accuracy, they are difficult to interpret and deploy broadly in the clinical setting. In this study, we set out to determine whether simpler models based on standard ECG measurements could detect LVSD with similar accuracy to that of deep learning models. Using an observational data set of 40 994 matched 12-lead ECGs and transthoracic echocardiograms, we trained a range of models with increasing complexity to detect LVSD based on ECG waveforms and derived measurements. The training data were acquired from the Stanford University Medical Center. External validation data were acquired from the Columbia Medical Center and the UK Biobank. The Stanford data set consisted of 40 994 matched ECGs and echocardiograms, of which 9.72% had LVSD. A random forest model using 555 discrete, automated measurements achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.92 (0.91-0.93), similar to a deep learning waveform model with an AUC of 0.94 (0.93-0.94). A logistic regression model based on five measurements achieved high performance [AUC of 0.86 (0.85-0.87)], close to a deep learning model and better than N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). Finally, we found that simpler models were more portable across sites, with experiments at two independent, external sites. Our study demonstrates the value of simple electrocardiographic models that perform nearly as well as deep learning models, while being much easier to implement and interpret.

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of interest: E.A. reports consulting fees from Apple Inc. M.V.P. reports research funding from NIH/NHLBI and Apple Inc., consulting fees from Apple Inc., Boston Scientific, Biotronik Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, QALY, Johnson & Johnson, and has an equity interest in QALY.