Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT Background AF risk estimation is feasible using clinical factors, inherited predisposition, and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electrocardiogram (ECG) analysis. Objective To test whether integrating these distinct risk signals improves AF risk estimation. Methods In the UK Biobank prospective cohort study, we estimated AF risk using three models derived from external populations: the well-validated Cohorts for Aging in Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology AF (CHARGE-AF) clinical score, a 1,113,667-variant AF polygenic risk score (PRS), and a published AI-enabled ECG-based AF risk model (ECG-AI). We estimated discrimination of 5-year incident AF using time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) and average precision (AP). Results Among 49,293 individuals (mean age 65±8 years, 52% women), 825 (2.4%) developed AF within 5 years. Using single models, discrimination of 5-year incident AF was higher using ECG-AI (AUROC 0.705 95%CI 0.686-0.724; AP 0.085 0.071-0.11) and CHARGE-AF (AUROC 0.785 0.769-0.801; AP 0.053 0.048-0.061) versus the PRS (AUROC 0.618, 0.598-0.639; AP 0.038 0.028-0.045). The inclusion of all components (“Predict-AF3”) was the best performing model (AUROC 0.817 0.802-0.832; AP 0.11 0.091-0.15, p2.5%) had a 5-year cumulative incidence of AF of 5.83% (5.33-6.32). At the same threshold, the 5-year cumulative incidence of AF was progressively higher according to the number of models predicting high risk (zero: 0.67% 0.51-0.84, one: 1.48% 1.28-1.69, two: 4.48% 3.99-4.98; three: 11.06% 9.48-12.61), and Predict-AF3 achieved favorable net reclassification improvement compared to both CHARGE-AF+ECG-AI (0.039 0.015-0.066) and CHARGE-AF+PRS (0.033 0.0082-0.059). Conclusions Integration of clinical, genetic, and AI-derived risk signals improves discrimination of 5-year AF risk over individual components. Models such as Predict-AF3 have substantial potential to improve prioritization of individuals for AF screening and preventive interventions.
Kany et al. (Wed,) studied this question.