ArticleScientific reports2026
Validation of AI-enhanced ECG image analysis for identifying extreme cardiac magnetic resonance metrics in a cross-ethnic UK biobank study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence enhanced electrocardiography (AI-ECG) has shown promise in detecting cardiac abnormalities, but validation against cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), the reference standard for cardiac structure and function, remains limited. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of six AI-ECG models in identifying CMR-defined cardiac abnormalities in a population-based cohort. This cohort study included 38,804 UK Biobank participants with paired 12-lead ECG and CMR data. AI-ECG models, originally developed using Korean hospital-based datasets, were externally validated in this sample. Cardiac abnormalities were defined as the top 1% of CMR-derived values. Outcomes were the performance of AI-ECG in detecting left and right ventricular dysfunction, based on ejection fraction (QCG-LVD and QCG-RVD) and strain (ECG-LVGLS and ECG-RVGLS), and structural abnormalities including left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and left atrial enlargement (LAE). Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), with subgroup analyses by age, sex, and comorbidities. Among 38,804 participants (mean age 64.2 years; 48.2% male), AI-ECG models showed high accuracy for detecting left ventricular dysfunction (AUC 0.887 for QCG-LVD and 0.896 for ECG-LVGLS) and right ventricular dysfunction (AUC 0.778 for QCG-RVD and 0.825 for ECG-RVGLS). In a sub-cohort of 21,267 individuals, AUCs were 0.824 for detecting LVH and 0.883 for LAE. Subgroup analyses showed consistent performance, with higher accuracy among older individuals, males, and those with hypertension or ischemic heart disease. In this large multiethnic cohort, AI-ECG models demonstrated strong performance in detecting CMR-defined abnormalities, supporting their potential as a scalable, noninvasive screening tool for cardiovascular disease.
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.