Key result
AI-enhanced ECG predicts paroxysmal AF with ~0.85 AUC across multiple institutions.
Why the study?
AI-enhanced ECG can detect paroxysmal AF from sinus rhythm ECGs, but model development across institutions and ECG systems is needed for broader applicability.
Does fine-tuning AI-enhanced ECG models on homogeneous cross-institutional datasets improve the prediction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from sinus rhythm compared to heterogeneous data?
Observational (n=191,783)
Yes
Does fine-tuning AI-enhanced ECG models on homogeneous cross-institutional datasets improve the prediction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from sinus rhythm compared to heterogeneous data?
Fine-tuning AI-enhanced ECG models on clinically homogeneous datasets (e.g., cardiology departments only) significantly improves cross-institutional prediction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from sinus rhythm, while differences in ECG hardware/formats have minimal impact.
May enhance AI-ECG generalizability for paroxysmal AF via homogeneous fine-tuning; extends observational data but requires prospective validation.
Background Artificial intelligence (AI)‐enhanced electrocardiography (ECG) has been developed to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) from sinus rhythm ECGs (SR‐ECGs). For broader applicability, model development across institutions and ECG systems is essential. Methods We developed an AI‐enhanced ECG model using SR‐ECGs from Tokai University ( n = 172,613; Nihon Kohden [NK] system) and The Cardiovascular Institute ( n = 19,170; GE MUSE system). AF‐labeled SR‐ECGs were defined as recordings within 31 days of an AF episode, while SR‐labeled SR‐ECGs were those with ≥ 1095 days of AF‐free follow‐up. Three datasets were constructed: Dataset 1 (Tokai University, all departments, NK), Dataset 2 (Tokai University, Cardiology Department, NK), and Dataset 3 (The Cardiovascular Institute, Cardiology Department, MUSE). We developed five models: scratch models (S1–S3) trained on Datasets 1–3, and fine‐tuned models (F1, F2) trained on Datasets 1 and 2 after pretraining on Dataset 3. Models were evaluated using A1–A3 (same as Datasets 1–3) and B1–B3, which differed in ECG resolution and compression (B1: original MUSE, B2: MUSE‐NK intermediate, B3: NK‐converted). Results Model F2, fine‐tuned on homogeneous datasets from cardiology departments, showed consistently high performance (AUC: A1 = 0.885, A2 = 0.829, A3 = 0.845). Model F1, fine‐tuned on heterogeneous datasets, demonstrated lower performance (AUC: A1 = 0.837, A2 = 0.726, A3 = 0.660). Model performance was consistent across different ECG format variants (B1–B3). Conclusion Fine‐tuning on homogeneous data improved performance and generalizability, whereas heterogeneous data led to reduced performance. ECG system format differences had minimal impact on model accuracy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suzuki et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Sinus rhythm for prediction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=191,783). AI-enhanced electrocardiography (AI-ECG) vs. Scratch models trained on single institutions was evaluated on Detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from sinus rhythm ECGs (AUC 0.885, 0.829, and 0.845 across datasets). An AI-enhanced ECG model fine-tuned on homogeneous cardiology datasets achieved high performance in predicting paroxysmal atrial fibrillation across institutions (AUC 0.829 to 0.885).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: