ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
Artificial intelligence analysis of the single-lead ECG predicts long-term clinical outcomes.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in the Wearable Electrocardiogram: A Primer on Wearable-Enabled Prediction of Cardiac Dysfunction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) applied to a single-lead electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) can detect impaired left ventricular systolic dysfunction [LVSD: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%]. This study aimed to determine if AI-ECG can also predict the two-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality independent of LVSD. Methods and results: Clinical outcomes after two-year follow-up were collected on patients who attended for routine echocardiography and received simultaneous single-lead-ECG recording for AI-ECG analysis. MACE and all-cause mortality were compared by Cox regression, measured against the classification of LVEF > or ≤40%. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients with echocardiographic LVEF ≥ 50%. With previously established thresholds, 'positive' AI-ECG was defined as an LVEF-predicted ≤40%, and negative AI-ECG signified an LVEF-predicted >40%; 1007 patients were included for analysis (mean age, 62.3 years; 52.4% male). 339 (33.7%) had an AI-ECG-predicted LVEF ≤ 40% and had a higher MACE rate (LVEF ≤ 40% vs. >40%: 34.2% vs.11.9%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.93; 95% CI, 1.39-2.69; Conclusion: An AI-ECG algorithm designed to detect LVEF ≤ 40% can also identify patients at risk of MACE and all-cause mortality from single-lead ECG recording-independent of actual LVEF on echo. This requires further evaluation as a point-of-care risk stratification tool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.