Why the study?
Although 12-lead ECGs can predict biological age associated with cardiovascular events, the clinical utility of artificial intelligence-predicted age using ECGs remains unclear.
Does AI-predicted age using 12-lead ECGs improve the prediction of cardiovascular events compared to chronological age?
Does AI-predicted age using 12-lead ECGs improve the prediction of cardiovascular events compared to chronological age?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AI-predicted age from 12-lead ECGs improves cardiovascular event prediction over chronological age specifically in patients under 60 years old.
Background: There is increasing evidence that 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG) can be used to predict biological age, which is associated with cardiovascular events. However, the utility of artificial intelligence (AI)-predicted age using ECGs remains unclear. Methods: Using a single-center database, we developed an AI-enabled ECG using 17 042 sinus rhythm ECGs (SR-ECG) to predict chronological age (CA) with a convolutional neural network that yields AI-predicted age. Using the 5-fold cross validation method, AI-predicted age deriving from the test dataset was yielded for all ECGs. The incidence by AgeDiff and the areas under the curve by receiver operating characteristic curve with AI-predicted age for cardiovascular events were analyzed. Results: During the mean follow-up period of 460.1 days, there were 543 cardiovascular events. The annualized incidence of cardiovascular events was 2.24 %, 2.44 %, and 3.01 %/year for patients with AgeDiff < -6, -6 to ≤6, and >6 years, respectively. The areas under the curve for cardiovascular events with CA and AI-predicted age, respectively, were 0.673 and 0.679 (Delong's test, P = 0.388) for all patients; 0.642 and 0.700 (P = 0.003) for younger patients (CA < 60 years); and 0.584 and 0.570 (P = 0.268) for older patients (CA ≥ 60 years). Conclusions: AI-predicted age using 12-lead ECGs showed superiority in predicting cardiovascular events compared with CA in younger patients, but not in older patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hirota et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: