A systematic review of 44 manuscripts detailing 53 ECG deep-learning models found highly variable reporting, with only 23% providing complete information required for methodologic reproduction.
Systematic Review (n=44)
What is the current landscape and scientific reporting practice of clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models?
44 manuscripts including 53 unique, clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models published through July 1, 2022
ECG deep-learning models
Current landscape of clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models and practices in scientific reporting
ECG deep-learning models are increasingly clinically relevant, but their reporting is highly variable and often lacks sufficient detail for reproduction or external validation.
BACKGROUND: The electrocardiogram (ECG) is one of the most common diagnostic tools available to assess cardio-vascular health. The advent of advanced computational techniques such as deep learning has dramatically expanded the breadth of clinical problems that can be addressed using ECG data, leading to increasing popularity of ECG deep-learning models aimed at predicting clinical endpoints. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to define the current landscape of clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models and examine practices in the scientific reporting of these studies. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models published through July 1, 2022. RESULTS: We identified 44 manuscripts including 53 unique, clinically relevant ECG deep-learning models. The rate of publication of ECG deep-learning models is increasing rapidly. The most common clinical applications of ECG deep learning were identification of cardiomyopathy (14/53 26%), followed by arrhythmia detection (9/53 17%). Methodologic reporting varied; while 33/44 (75%) publications included model architecture diagrams, complete information required to reproduce these models was provided in only 10/44 (23%). Saliency analysis was performed in 20/44 (46%) of publications. Only 18/53 (34%) models were tested within external validation cohorts. Model code or resources allowing for model implementation by external groups were available for only 5/44 (11%) publications. CONCLUSIONS: While ECG deep-learning models are increasingly clinically relevant, their reporting is highly variable, and few publications provide sufficient detail for methodologic reproduction or model validation by external groups. The field of ECG deep learning would benefit from adherence to a set of standardized scientific reporting guidelines.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Vennela Avula
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Kathérine C. Wu
Cardiac Imaging
Richard Carrick
General Cardiology
JACC Advances
Johns Hopkins University
Johns Hopkins Medicine
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Avula et al. (Wed,) conducted a systematic review in Cardiovascular health (n=44). ECG deep-learning models was evaluated on Clinical applications and scientific reporting practices. A systematic review of 44 manuscripts detailing 53 ECG deep-learning models found highly variable reporting, with only 23% providing complete information required for methodologic reproduction.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0663813f8bf83a443ddaf0 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2023.100686