Evidence mapPaperPMID 42488151Full record

ArticleHeart rhythm O22026

Machine learning to classify left ventricular hypertrophy using electrocardiographic feature extraction by variational autoencoder.

Amulya Gupta, Christopher J Harvey, Ashley DeBauge, Sumaiya Shomaji, Zijun Yao, Yongkuk Lee, Amit Noheria

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Amulya GuptaProgram for AI & Research in Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Christopher J HarveyProgram for AI & Research in Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.
Ashley DeBaugeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Sumaiya ShomajiDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Zijun YaoDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Yongkuk LeeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas.
Amit NoheriaProgram for AI & Research in Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Traditional electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) have modest diagnostic yield. Objective: This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning (ML) models for LVH diagnosis from ECG. Methods: ECG calculations (rate, intervals, and axis); R-wave, S-wave, and overall-QRS amplitudes; and QRS voltage-time integrals were obtained from 12-lead, vectorcardiographic X-Y-Z-lead, and 3-dimensional (root-sum-square) ECGs. Deep learning-enabled latent embeddings (30 per ECG) were extracted using a variational autoencoder (pretrained on unselected 1.18 million ECGs) from representative-beat signals. Logistic regression, random forest, light gradient boosted machine (LGBM), residual neural network and multilayered perceptron network models using ECG features (calculations and embeddings) and sex, and a convolutional neural network (CNN) using ECG signals alone were trained to predict LVH (left ventricular mass index, women >95 g/m Results: In the testing set (n = 54,984), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for LVH classification was higher for ML models using ECG features (LGBM 0.794; multilayered perceptron 0.793; residual neural network 0.795) than the best individual ECG variable (Z-axis QRS voltage-time integral 0.707), the best traditional criterion (Cornell voltage-duration product 0.716), and the CNN using ECG signals (0.788). Among patients without LVH who had a follow-up echocardiogram >1 year later, LGBM false positives, compared with true negatives, had a 3.07-fold higher odds of developing future LVH (95% confidence interval 2.44-3.86; Conclusion: ML models are superior to traditional ECG criteria for classifying LVH. Models trained on extracted ECG features, including deep-learning latent space representations, can outperform CNN models trained on ECG signals.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningECGElectrocardiogramLeft ventricular hypertrophyLVHMachine learningVariational autoencoder

Identifiers

PMID42488151
PMCPMC13390047

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.