ArticleEuropean heart journal2026
Foundation models for electrocardiogram interpretation: clinical implications.
Article in European heart journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and the evolution of the electrocardiogram: from cardiovascular diagnostic tool to digital biomarker.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- Advances in the Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram by Artificial Intelligence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Demographic-aware temporal graph attention for fair and accurate cardiac abnormality detection in 12-lead ECG.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence electrocardiography for left ventricular systolic dysfunction demonstrates preserved performance across demographic training imbalances.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- CARDIAC-FM: A Multimodal Foundation Model for Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Using ECG and Cardiac MRI.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography for assessment of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in the era of foundation models.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- AI-ECG for Echocardiography Triage in Structural Heart Disease: Evidence, Implementation, and Future Directions.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) remains a cornerstone of cardiac diagnostics, yet existing artificial intelligence (AI) solutions for automated interpretation often lack generalizability, remain closed source, and are primarily trained using supervised learning (SL), which requires extensive labelled datasets and may limit adaptability across diverse clinical settings. Self-supervised learning (SSL) can potentially overcome these limitations by learning robust representations from unlabelled data. To address these challenges, this study developed and compared two open-source foundational ECG models: DeepECG-SL, a supervised multilabel ECG model, and DeepECG-SSL, a self-supervised model.
methodsBoth models were trained on over 1 million ECGs using a standardized preprocessing pipeline and automated free-text extraction from ECG reports to predict 77 cardiac conditions. DeepECG-SSL leveraged unlabelled data through self-supervised contrastive learning and masked lead modelling before fine-tuning for downstream tasks, while DeepECG-SL was trained directly on labelled diagnostic data in an end-to-end fashion. Performance was evaluated across seven private, multilingual healthcare systems and four public ECG repositories, with assessment of fairness by age and sex, and investigation of privacy vulnerabilities as well as memory and compute requirements.
resultsDeepECG-SSL achieved micro-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) across all 77 cardiac conditions for ECG interpretation of 0.990 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.990, 0.990] on the internal dataset (MHI-ds), 0.981 (95% CI: 0.981, 0.981) on external public datasets (UKB, CLSA, MIMIC-IV and PTB), and 0.983 (95% CI: 0.983, 0.983) on external private datasets (UW, UCSF, JGH, NYP, MGH, CSH and CHUM), while DeepECG-SL demonstrated AUROCs of 0.992 (95% CI: 0.992, 0.992), 0.980 (95% CI: 0.980, 0.980), and 0.983 (95% CI: 0.983, 0.984), respectively. Fairness analyses revealed minimal disparities (true-positive rate and false-positive rate difference <0.1) across age and sex groups for both models. DeepECG-SSL demonstrated superior performance on limited-data digital biomarker tasks, with the largest improvements in long QT syndrome (LQTS) genotype classification (AUROC 0.931 vs 0.850, P = .026, n = 127 ECGs) and 5 year atrial fibrillation risk prediction (AUROC 0.742 vs 0.734, P < 0.001, n = 132 050 ECGs), while achieving superior performance in left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% classification (AUROC 0.926 vs 0.917, P < 0.001, n = 25 252 ECGs) and comparable performance in LQTS detection (AUROC 0.767 vs 0.735, P = 0.117, n = 934 ECGs).
conclusionsThis study establishes SSL as a promising paradigm for ECG analysis, particularly in settings with limited annotated data, enhancing accessibility, generalizability, and fairness in AI-driven cardiac diagnostics. By releasing model weights, preprocessing tools, and validation code, this work aims to support robust, data-efficient AI diagnostics across diverse clinical environments and questions.
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.