Key result
False-positive AI-ECG results linked to ~3.8-fold higher risk of future reduced LVEF.
Why the study?
Although artificial intelligence enhances ECG detection of reduced LVEF, the clinical and prognostic implications of false positive and false negative AI-ECG misclassifications remained to be investigated.
Does AI-ECG misclassification (false positive and false negative) predict cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalization, or future development of reduced LVEF in patients undergoing echocardiographic LVEF assessment?
Cohort (n=528)
Does AI-ECG misclassification (false positive and false negative) predict cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalization, or future development of reduced LVEF in patients undergoing echocardiographic LVEF assessment?
Patients with false-positive AI-ECG predictions for reduced LVEF have impaired baseline global longitudinal strain and a nearly four-fold increased risk of developing overt systolic dysfunction and adverse cardiovascular outcomes during follow-up, warranting close clinical monitoring.
False-positive AI-ECG may flag patients for closer LVEF monitoring; leaves open whether prospective trials confirm utility.
Background Artificial intelligence has been shown to enhance the diagnostic capabilities of the electrocardiogram (AI-ECG), enabling the detection of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical and prognostic implications of AI-ECG misclassifications, I.e. false positive (FP) and false negative (FN), using a previously validated AI-ECG algorithm to detect reduced LVEF (<50%) at echocardiography. Methods The study population included an independent retrospective cohort of 528 patients (age 68 [56–77] y, 40% women), which consisted of four matched groups according to the concordance between paired AI- ECG predictions and Simpson’s biplane LVEF assessments: true negative (TN), FP,FN, and true positive (TP). Sttudy outcomes included a composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, and, development of reduced LVEF (<50%) during follow-up in patients with normal LVEF (FP, TN) at baseline. Results At baseline, LVEF was normal in FP (55%) and TN (56%) patients and impaired in FN (45%) and TP (40%) ones (p<0.001). In contrast, global longitudinal strain (GLS) was preserved only in TN (18%) but progressively worsened across FP (14%), FN (14%), and TP (10%) ones (p<0.001). During median follow-up of 4.5 years (IQR: 2.8–6.5y), the composite endpoint occured in 59 (13%) patients with significantly lower incidence in the TN versus the other three groups (log-rank p<0.001). In multivariable Cox analysis, impaired LVEF or GLS, and higher age emerged as only independent predictors of the composite endpoint (all p < 0.05). During follow-up, a total of 49 out of 131 (37%) FP versus only 12 out of 130 (9%) TN patiens developed overt systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 50%) (p < 0.001). The major causes of LVEF decline were valvular heart- (28.6%) or coronary artery disease (23,2%) and atrial fibrillation (26.8%). In Cox regression analysis, AI-ECG classification was independent predictor of future drop in LVEF (HR 3.78; 95% CI 1.74–8.23; P=0.001) while GLS was not (NS) (Figure 1,2). Conclusions AI-ECG misclassifications are clinically relevant. The FP group has increased risk to develop overt LV dysfunction with adverse outcome, warranting close clinical follow-up. The FN classification is associated with worse outcome driven by LV dysfunction not recognized by AI-ECG, but fortunately, the prevalence of FN in the models is low.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mistrulli et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) (n=528). False positive AI-ECG classification for reduced LVEF (<50%) vs. True negative AI-ECG classification was evaluated on Development of reduced LVEF (<50%) during follow-up in patients with normal LVEF at baseline, and a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure (HR 3.78, 95% CI 1.74-8.23, p=0.001). False positive AI-ECG classification independently predicted future development of reduced LVEF (<50%) compared to true negative (37% vs 9%; HR 3.78; 95% CI 1.74-8.23; P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: