ArticleBioData mining2025
Deep survival analysis from adult and pediatric electrocardiograms: a multi-center benchmark study.
Article in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A three-level risk stratification algorithm for arrhythmia based on CNN-LSTM palindromic structure.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Improving arrhythmic risk prediction using cardiac magnetic resonance within deep learning in ischemic heart disease.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- An ECG foundation model for generalizable cardiac function prediction across the lifespan.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Estimation of Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease from Serial Electrocardiograms.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence applied to electrocardiography (AI-ECG) has recently shown potential for mortality prediction, but heterogeneous approaches and private datasets have limited generalizable insights into AI methodologies fit for this purpose. To address this, we systematically evaluated model design choices across three large medical center cohorts: Beth Isreal Deaconess (MIMIC-IV: n = 795,546 ECGs, United States), Telehealth Network of Minas Gerais (Code-15; n = 345,779, Brazil), and Boston Children's Hospital (BCH; n = 255,379, United States).
resultsWe comprehensively evaluates models to predict all-cause mortality, comparing horizon-based classification and deep survival methods various neural architectures including convolutional neural networks and transformers. We also benchmarked against demographic-only and gradient boosting baselines. Top models yielded good performance (median concordance, Code-15: 0.83; MIMIC-IV: 0.78; BCH: 0.81). Incorporating age and sex improved performance across all datasets. Classifier-Cox models exhibited site-dependent sensitivity to horizon choice (median Pearson's R, Code-15: 0.35; MIMIC-IV: -0.71; BCH: 0.37). External validation reduced concordance, and in some cases, demographic-only models outperformed externally trained AI-ECG models on Code-15. However, models trained on multi-site data outperformed site-specific models by margins ranging from 5% to 22%.
conclusionsThese findings highlight several key factors for robust AI-ECG deployment. Deep survival methods consistently provided advantages over horizon-based classifiers, while inclusion of demographic covariates such as age and sex improved predictive performance across sites. The sensitivity of classifier-based models to horizon selection underscores the need for site-specific calibration. The multi-site experiment reveals that cross-cohort training, even between adult and pediatric cohorts, can substantially improve performance on those cohorts compared to cohort-specific training. Together, these results emphasize the importance of model type, demographic features, and training data diversity in developing AI-ECG models that can be reliably applied across populations.
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.