Key result
Patient-wise recalibrated DeepECG achieves ~0.96 AUROC for LVSD detection, outperforming the uncalibrated model.
Why the study?
AI-ECG models for detecting LVSD often exhibit degraded performance in patients with comorbidities, warranting a recalibration method using longitudinal data to enhance accuracy and clinical utility for ongoing monitoring.
Does a patient-wise recalibrated AI-ECG model improve the detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction compared to an uncalibrated model in patients with paired TTE and ECG data?
Cohort
Yes
Does a patient-wise recalibrated AI-ECG model improve the detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction compared to an uncalibrated model in patients with paired TTE and ECG data?
Effect estimate: AUROC (95% CI 0.946-0.965)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.956% vs 0.953%
p-value: p=<.001
Patient-wise recalibration using historical LVEF and prior AI-ECG outputs significantly improves the accuracy of AI-ECG models for detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
May support longitudinal AI-ECG LVSD monitoring in comorbid patients; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Background Artificial intelligence–augmented electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) models for detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) often exhibit degraded performance in patients with comorbidities. Objective This study aimed to introduce and validate a recalibration method using longitudinal patient data to enhance prediction accuracy and simulate its clinical utility for ongoing monitoring. Methods We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using data from 2 hospitals in Korea. A dataset of paired transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs) and electrocardiograms (ECGs) matched within a 2-week interval was constructed, separating pairs into baseline (first for each patient) and follow-up assessments. In addition to conventional supervised learning, we developed a patient-wise recalibration strategy that incorporated historical left ventricular ejection fraction measurements and prior AI-ECG outputs to adjust for future predictions, thus empirically mitigating confounding effects. Pretraining was also implemented to enhance the model’s performance. Results The recalibrated 12-lead DeepECG LVSD model achieved an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.956 (95% CI 0.946‐0.965) for internal validation and 0.940 (95% CI 0.936‐0.945) for external validation of follow-up TTE-ECG pairs. The uncalibrated 12-lead DeepECG LVSD model also showed modest performance, with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.953 (95% CI 0.941‐0.965) in the internal validation and 0.947 (95% CI 0.943‐0.951) in the external validation when tested on baseline TTE-ECG pairs. Recalibration yielded statistically significant improvements in the 12-lead DeepECG LVSD models ( P <.001), with enhanced and more balanced performance across all clinical subgroups. Conclusions Patient-wise recalibration improved accuracy and consistency across various comorbidities by mitigating performance degradation and bias. This broadens the application of AI-ECG for LVSD detection from low-risk screening to high-risk longitudinal monitoring.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Patient-wise recalibrated 12-lead DeepECG LVSD model vs. Uncalibrated 12-lead DeepECG LVSD model was evaluated on Area under the receiver operating curve for detecting left ventricular systolic dysfunction (internal validation) (AUROC, 95% CI 0.946-0.965, p=<.001). A patient-wise recalibrated 12-lead DeepECG model achieved an AUROC of 0.956 (95% CI 0.946-0.965) for detecting LVSD, significantly improving upon the uncalibrated model (P<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: