Key result
AI-ECG outperforms standard clinical scores for detecting reduced GLS in cancer survivors with ~0.79 AUC.
Why the study?
Strain imaging can detect subclinical HF in cancer survivors via reduced GLS, but it is resource-intensive and not universally accessible. AI-ECG offers a scalable alternative, yet its performance for detecting reduced GLS in cancer survivors remained unclear.
Does artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiography (AI-ECG) improve the detection of subclinical left ventricular dysfunction (reduced global longitudinal strain) compared to clinical and EMR-based heart failure risk scores in asymptomatic cancer survivors?
Observational (n=472)
Does artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiography (AI-ECG) improve the detection of subclinical left ventricular dysfunction (reduced global longitudinal strain) compared to clinical and EMR-based heart failure risk scores in asymptomatic cancer survivors?
AI-ECG provides moderate discrimination and high negative predictive value (0.986) for detecting subclinical left ventricular dysfunction (reduced GLS) in asymptomatic long-term cancer survivors, particularly when combined with the EMR-based CHERISH risk score.
May aid GLS detection in cancer survivors; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Background Cancer survivors face elevated heart failure (HF) risk, with subclinical HF often detectable by reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS). Strain imaging is resource-intensive and not universally accessible. Artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) offers a scalable alternative, but its performance for detecting reduced GLS in survivors remains unclear. Purpose To evaluate the discriminatory performance of AI-ECG for detecting reduced GLS in asymptomatic cancer survivors and compare it with clinically-derived and electronic medical record (EMR)-based HF risk scores. Methods Asymptomatic cancer survivors ≥5 years post-treatment underwent paired ECG and echocardiography with GLS assessment. Reduced GLS was defined as >-16%. Nine machine learning models were assessed using 70% of data for training and cross-validation and 30% for independent testing. From 1,900 ECG-derived waveform features, 50 ANOVA-selected features yielded optimal discrimination. ARIC-HF (incorporating clinical examination and blood biomarkers) and CHERISH (an EMR-based score using routinely coded diagnoses) risk scores were calculated using published coefficients. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). AI-ECG was evaluated alone, combined with each score via percentile rank averaging, and within score-defined risk strata. Results A total of 472 cancer survivors (mean age 64.8 years; 86% female) were included; of which 80 (16.9%) had reduced GLS. AI-ECG achieved the highest discrimination (AUC 0.791; sensitivity 0.958, specificity 0.585; negative predictive value 0.986, positive predictive value 0.319), outperforming ARIC-HF (AUC 0.713) and CHERISH (AUC 0.671) in the testing dataset. Combining AI-ECG with the CHERISH risk score improved discrimination (AUC 0.806; ΔAUC +0.14, 95% CI 0.06–0.21), with the strongest performance observed in low-risk strata (AUC 0.863). ARIC-HF combined with AI-ECG showed no significant improvement in predictive performance (AUC 0.793). Conclusions AI-ECG shows moderate discrimination for subclinical HF, with significant improvement in predictive accuracy when combined with CHERISH risk score among cancer survivors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Subclinical left ventricular dysfunction (reduced global longitudinal strain) in cancer survivors (n=472). Artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) vs. ARIC-HF and CHERISH risk scores was evaluated on Detection of reduced global longitudinal strain (>-16%) (AUC 0.791). AI-ECG achieved an AUC of 0.791 for detecting reduced GLS in cancer survivors, outperforming ARIC-HF (0.713) and CHERISH (0.671), and improved to 0.806 when combined with CHERISH (ΔAUC +0.14).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More on HFrEF treatmentMore from European Heart Journal