Observational analysis predicts left ventricular dysfunction in childhood cancer patients, suggesting AI-ECG could enhance cardiac care.
Aims To assess the potential for artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) to serve as a long-term cardiac surveillance tool and predict left ventricular systolic dysfunction in childhood cancer patients. Methods and Results We assessed performance of our previously established AI-ECG model to predict left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50% and ≤40% in patients with childhood cancer during internal testing (Boston Children’s Hospital) and external validation (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia). The internal test cohort comprised 447 patients (57% male; age at cancer diagnosis 11.2 [5.4-15.7] years; 1,553 ECG-echo pairs at median age 13.5 [IQR, 7.7-17.9] years; 6.4% with LVEF ≤50%; 1.3% with LVEF ≤40%), 28% with leukemia, 16% with lymphoma, 8% with neuroblastoma, 8% with sarcoma, 2% with gastrointestinal cancers, 3% with genitourinary cancers, 6% with central nervous system cancers, 11% with other/unspecified cancers, and 18% with missing/unknown cancer labels. Treatment strategies included anthracyclines (35%), bone marrow transplant (7%), and radiation (1%). The external test cohort comprised 2,964 patients (55.4% male; 7,054 ECG-echo pairs at median age 11.6 [IQR 6.8-15.1] years; 2.5% with LVEF ≤50%; 0.9% with LVEF ≤40%). Similar AUROCs (0.80-0.85), sensitivities (0.75-0.82), NPVs (0.986-0.996), and percent predicted negative (51-65%) were obtained across institutions to predict LVEF ≤50%, outperforming a biomarker-based model benchmark. Patients with high AI-ECG risk scores for LVEF ≤50% had higher rates of mortality (HR 3.1 [95% 1.8-5.3], p<0.001) compared to patients with low AI-ECG risk scores. Conclusion AI-ECG shows promise as a digital biomarker for cardiac surveillance in the vulnerable childhood cancer survivor population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asztalos et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: