Artificial intelligence for direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory electrocardiography

IF 50 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Nature Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1038/s41591-025-03516-x
L. S. Johnson, P. Zadrozniak, G. Jasina, A. Grotek-Cuprjak, J. G. Andrade, E. Svennberg, S. Z. Diederichsen, W. F. McIntyre, S. Stavrakis, J. Benezet-Mazuecos, P. Krisai, Z. Iakobishvili, A. Laish-Farkash, S. Bhavnani, E. Ljungström, J. Bacevicius, N. L. van Vreeswijk, M. Rienstra, R. Spittler, J. A. Marx, A. Oraii, A. Miracle Blanco, A. Lozano, I. Mustafina, S. Zafeiropoulos, R. Bennett, J. Bisson, D. Linz, Y. Kogan, E. Glazer, G. Marincheva, M. Rahkovich, E. Shaked, M. H. Ruwald, K. Haugan, J. Węcławski, G. Radoslovich, S. Jamal, A. Brandes, P. T. Matusik, M. Manninger, P. B. Meyre, S. Blum, A. Persson, A. Måneheim, P. Hammarlund, A. Fedorowski, T. Wodaje, C. Lewinter, V. Juknevicius, R. Jakaite, C. Shen, T. Glotzer, P. Platonov, G. Engström, A. P. Benz, J. S. Healey
{"title":"Artificial intelligence for direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory electrocardiography","authors":"L. S. Johnson, P. Zadrozniak, G. Jasina, A. Grotek-Cuprjak, J. G. Andrade, E. Svennberg, S. Z. Diederichsen, W. F. McIntyre, S. Stavrakis, J. Benezet-Mazuecos, P. Krisai, Z. Iakobishvili, A. Laish-Farkash, S. Bhavnani, E. Ljungström, J. Bacevicius, N. L. van Vreeswijk, M. Rienstra, R. Spittler, J. A. Marx, A. Oraii, A. Miracle Blanco, A. Lozano, I. Mustafina, S. Zafeiropoulos, R. Bennett, J. Bisson, D. Linz, Y. Kogan, E. Glazer, G. Marincheva, M. Rahkovich, E. Shaked, M. H. Ruwald, K. Haugan, J. Węcławski, G. Radoslovich, S. Jamal, A. Brandes, P. T. Matusik, M. Manninger, P. B. Meyre, S. Blum, A. Persson, A. Måneheim, P. Hammarlund, A. Fedorowski, T. Wodaje, C. Lewinter, V. Juknevicius, R. Jakaite, C. Shen, T. Glotzer, P. Platonov, G. Engström, A. P. Benz, J. S. Healey","doi":"10.1038/s41591-025-03516-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Developments in ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) technology have led to vast amounts of ECG data that currently need to be interpreted by human technicians. Here we tested an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory ECGs. Beat-by-beat annotation of 14,606 individual ambulatory ECG recordings (mean duration = 14 ± 10 days) was performed by certified ECG technicians (n = 167) and an ensemble AI model, called DeepRhythmAI. To compare the performance of the AI model and the technicians, a random sample of 5,235 rhythm events identified by the AI model or by technicians, of which 2,236 events were identified as critical arrhythmias, was selected for annotation by one of 17 cardiologist consensus panels. The mean sensitivity of the AI model for the identification of critical arrhythmias was 98.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.7–99.4), as compared to 80.3% (95% CI = 77.3–83.3%) for the technicians. False-negative findings were observed in 3.2/1,000 patients for the AI model versus 44.3/1,000 patients for the technicians. Accordingly, the relative risk of a missed diagnosis was 14.1 (95% CI = 10.4–19.0) times higher for the technicians. However, a higher false-positive event rate was observed for the AI model (12 (interquartile range (IQR) = 6–74)/1,000 patient days) as compared to the technicians (5 (IQR = 2–153)/1,000 patient days). We conclude that the DeepRhythmAI model has excellent negative predictive value for critical arrhythmias, substantially reducing false-negative findings, but at a modest cost of increased false-positive findings. AI-only analysis to facilitate direct-to-physician reporting could potentially reduce costs and improve access to care and outcomes in patients who need ambulatory ECG monitoring. In a large-scale analysis of ambulatory electrocardiographic recordings, a deep learning algorithm had a substantially higher sensitivity for the detection of critical arrhythmias as compared to technicians, opening a path toward artificial intelligence-assisted direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory electrocardiography results.","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"31 3","pages":"925-931"},"PeriodicalIF":50.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03516-x.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03516-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Developments in ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) technology have led to vast amounts of ECG data that currently need to be interpreted by human technicians. Here we tested an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory ECGs. Beat-by-beat annotation of 14,606 individual ambulatory ECG recordings (mean duration = 14 ± 10 days) was performed by certified ECG technicians (n = 167) and an ensemble AI model, called DeepRhythmAI. To compare the performance of the AI model and the technicians, a random sample of 5,235 rhythm events identified by the AI model or by technicians, of which 2,236 events were identified as critical arrhythmias, was selected for annotation by one of 17 cardiologist consensus panels. The mean sensitivity of the AI model for the identification of critical arrhythmias was 98.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.7–99.4), as compared to 80.3% (95% CI = 77.3–83.3%) for the technicians. False-negative findings were observed in 3.2/1,000 patients for the AI model versus 44.3/1,000 patients for the technicians. Accordingly, the relative risk of a missed diagnosis was 14.1 (95% CI = 10.4–19.0) times higher for the technicians. However, a higher false-positive event rate was observed for the AI model (12 (interquartile range (IQR) = 6–74)/1,000 patient days) as compared to the technicians (5 (IQR = 2–153)/1,000 patient days). We conclude that the DeepRhythmAI model has excellent negative predictive value for critical arrhythmias, substantially reducing false-negative findings, but at a modest cost of increased false-positive findings. AI-only analysis to facilitate direct-to-physician reporting could potentially reduce costs and improve access to care and outcomes in patients who need ambulatory ECG monitoring. In a large-scale analysis of ambulatory electrocardiographic recordings, a deep learning algorithm had a substantially higher sensitivity for the detection of critical arrhythmias as compared to technicians, opening a path toward artificial intelligence-assisted direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory electrocardiography results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于直接向医生报告动态心电图的人工智能
动态心电图(ECG)技术的发展导致了大量的心电图数据,目前需要由人类技术人员来解释。在这里,我们测试了一种人工智能(AI)算法,用于直接向医生报告动态心电图。由经认证的心电图技术人员(n = 167)和名为DeepRhythmAI的集成AI模型对14,606个个体动态心电图记录(平均持续时间= 14±10天)进行逐拍注释。为了比较人工智能模型和技术人员的表现,从人工智能模型或技术人员识别的5235个心律事件中随机抽取样本,其中2236个事件被确定为严重心律失常,由17个心脏病专家共识小组之一进行注释。人工智能模型识别危重心律失常的平均灵敏度为98.6%(95%可信区间(CI) = 97.7-99.4),而技术人员的平均灵敏度为80.3% (95% CI = 77.3-83.3%)。人工智能模型的假阴性结果为3.2/ 1000,而技术人员模型的假阴性结果为44.3/ 1000。因此,对于技术人员来说,漏诊的相对风险是14.1倍(95% CI = 10.4-19.0)。然而,人工智能模型的假阳性事件发生率(12(四分位数间距(IQR) = 6-74)/ 1000患者日)高于技术人员(5 (IQR = 2-153)/ 1000患者日)。我们得出结论,DeepRhythmAI模型对严重心律失常具有出色的阴性预测价值,大大减少了假阴性结果,但以增加假阳性结果为适度代价。促进直接向医生报告的纯人工智能分析可能会降低成本,并改善需要动态心电图监测的患者获得护理的机会和结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Medicine
Nature Medicine 医学-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
100.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including: -Case-reports and small case series -Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4 -Observational studies -Meta-analyses -Biomarker studies -Public and global health studies Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.
期刊最新文献
Making antibiotic stewardship guidelines work in real-world settings Effects of a comprehensive antibiotic stewardship program on antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in rural facilities: a cluster randomized trial Neurodegenerative diseases need more mechanism-informed trials A short-acting psychedelic intervention for major depressive disorder: a phase IIa randomized placebo-controlled trial A quantitative DOPA decarboxylase biomarker for diagnosis in Lewy body disorders
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1