Key result
AI-ECG model detects aortic stenosis with ~0.85 AUC, outperforming conventional LVH criteria.
Why the study?
While AI-based ECG models have shown promise for aortic stenosis detection, it remained unclear whether they primarily reflect conventional left ventricular hypertrophy voltage criteria or capture additional ECG features.
Does an electrocardiogram-based artificial intelligence model improve the detection of aortic stenosis compared to conventional left ventricular hypertrophy voltage criteria in patients from Japanese academic institutions?
Observational (n=51,713)
Yes
Does an electrocardiogram-based artificial intelligence model improve the detection of aortic stenosis compared to conventional left ventricular hypertrophy voltage criteria in patients from Japanese academic institutions?
A multicenter deep learning AI-ECG model accurately detects aortic stenosis with high negative predictive value (98.0%) by capturing ECG features in limb leads beyond conventional LVH voltage criteria.
AI-ECG may detect AS beyond LVH criteria; hypothesis-generating for screening, needs prospective validation.
Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive valvular disease associated with poor prognosis once symptoms develop, yet routine echocardiographic screening is impractical. While artificial intelligence (AI)-based electrocardiogram (ECG) models have shown promise for AS detection, it remains unclear whether they primarily reflect conventional left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) voltage criteria or capture additional ECG features. Methods and Results: We developed a deep learning model using 244,816 ECGs from 51,713 patients across 6 academic institutions in Japan (Clinical Deep Data Accumulation System [CLIDAS] database). AS labels were derived from inpatient Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) codes. The model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.849 (95% confidence interval 0.832–0.865) in the independent test cohort, with consistent performance across institutions, sex, and age. At a threshold of 0.1, sensitivity was 79.1%, specificity was 73.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.0%. Conventional LVH voltage criteria (Sokolow–Lyon AUC 0.706; Cornell AUC 0.692) showed lower performance, and adding them to the AI model conferred no incremental benefit (AUC 0.849 vs. 0.847). Gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) revealed predominant attention around QRS complexes in limb leads, beyond regions typically assessed in LVH evaluation. Conclusions: This multicenter AI-ECG model demonstrated strong discrimination for AS and captured ECG features beyond conventional LVH voltage criteria. The high NPV suggests it may be useful as a rule-out tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shimada et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Aortic stenosis (n=51,713). Deep learning AI-ECG model vs. Conventional LVH voltage criteria (Sokolow-Lyon and Cornell) was evaluated on Detection of aortic stenosis (AUC 0.849, 95% CI 0.832-0.865). An AI-ECG model detected aortic stenosis with an AUC of 0.849 (95% CI 0.832-0.865), outperforming Sokolow-Lyon (AUC 0.706) and Cornell (AUC 0.692) LVH criteria.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: