Why the study?
AI models applied to 12-lead ECG waveforms can predict AF, but the factors forming the basis of these risk predictions are usually not well understood.
Does an ECG-AI model for predicting AF risk have a distinct genetic basis compared to a clinical variable model in individuals without AF?
Does an ECG-AI model for predicting AF risk have a distinct genetic basis compared to a clinical variable model in individuals without AF?
AI-based ECG prediction of atrial fibrillation risk captures specific biological and genetic pathways (sarcomeric, ion channel) better than standard clinical variables.
ECG-AI AF risk predictions reflect genetic variation at known loci; leaves open clinical utility beyond standard polygenic scores.
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) models applied to 12-lead ECG waveforms can predict atrial fibrillation (AF), a heritable and morbid arrhythmia. However, the factors forming the basis of risk predictions from AI models are usually not well understood. We hypothesized that there might be a genetic basis for an AI algorithm for predicting the 5-year risk of new-onset AF using 12-lead ECGs (ECG-AI)-based risk estimates. METHODS: We applied a validated ECG-AI model for predicting incident AF to ECGs from 39 986 UK Biobank participants without AF. We then performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of the predicted AF risk and compared it with an AF GWAS and a GWAS of risk estimates from a clinical variable model. RESULTS: . In contrast, the clinical variable model prediction GWAS indicated a different genetic profile. In genetic correlation analysis, the prediction from the ECG-AI model was estimated to have a higher correlation with AF than that from the clinical variable model. CONCLUSIONS: Predicted AF risk from an ECG-AI model is influenced by genetic variation implicating sarcomeric, ion channel and body height pathways. ECG-AI models may identify individuals at risk for disease via specific biological pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: