Data sources

This study was performed in Alberta, Canada, where there is a single-payer healthcare system with universal access and 100% capture of all interactions with the healthcare system.

ECG data was linked with the following administrative health databases using a unique patient health number: (1) Discharge Abstract Database (DAD) containing data on inpatient hospitalizations; (2) National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) database of all hospital-based outpatient clinic, and emergency department (ED) visits; and (3) Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan Registry (AHCIP), which provides demographic information.

We used standard 12-lead ECG traces (voltage-time series, sampled at 500Hz for the duration of 10seconds for each of 12 leads) and ECG measurements (automatically generated by Philips IntelliSpace ECG systems built-in algorithm). The ECG measurement included atrial rate, heart rate, RR interval, P wave duration, frontal P axis, horizontal P axis, PR interval, QRS duration, frontal QRS axis in the initial 40ms, frontal QRS axis in the terminal 40ms, frontal QRS axis, horizontal QRS axis in the initial 40ms, horizontal QRS axis in terminal 40ms, horizontal QRS axis, frontal ST wave axis (equivalent to ST deviation), frontal T axis, horizontal ST wave axis, horizontal T axis, Q wave onset, Fridericia rate-corrected QT interval, QT interval, Bazetts rate-corrected QT interval.

The study cohort has been described previously25. In brief, patients who were hospitalized at 14 sites between February 2007 and April 2020 in Alberta, Canada, and includes 2,015,808 ECGs from 3,336,091 ED visits and 1,071,576 hospitalizations of 260,065 patients. Concurrent healthcare encounters (ED visits and/or hospitalizations) that occurred for a patient within a 48-hour period of each other were considered to be transfers and part of the same healthcare episode. An ECG record was linked to a healthcare episode if the acquisition date was within the timeframe between the admission date and discharge date of an episode. After excluding the ECGs that could not be linked to any episode, ECGs of patients <18 years of age, as well as ECGs with poor signal quality (identified via warning flags generated by the ECG machine manufacturers built-in quality algorithm), our analysis cohort contained 1,605,268 ECGs from 748,773 episodes in 244,077 patients (Fig. 1).

We developed and evaluated ECG-based models to predict the probability of a patient being diagnosed with any of 15 specific common CV conditions: AF, SVT, VT, CA, AVB, UA, NSTEMI, STEMI, PTE, HCM, AS, MVP, MS, PHTN, and HF. The conditions were identified based on the record of corresponding International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes in the primary or in any one of 24 secondary diagnosis fields of a healthcare episode linked to a particular ECG (Supplementary Table 5). The validity of ICD coding in administrative health databases has been established previously36,37. If an ECG was performed during an ED or inpatient episode, it was considered positive for all diagnoses of interest that were recorded in the episode. Some diagnoses, such as AF, SVT, VT, STEMI, and AVB, which are typically identified through ECGs, were included in the study as positive controls to showcase the effectiveness of our models in detecting ECG-diagnosable conditions.

The goal of the prediction model was to output calibrated probabilities for each of selected 15 conditions. These learned models could use ECGs that were acquired at any time point during a healthcare episode. Note that a single patient visit may involve multiple ECGs. When training the model, we used all ECGs (multiple ECGs belonging to the same episode were included) in the training/development set to maximize learning. However, to evaluate our models, we used only the earliest ECG in a given episode in the test/holdout set, with the goal of producing a prediction system that could be employed at the point of care, when the patients first ECG is acquired during an ED visit or hospitalization (See section Evaluation below for more details).

We used ResNet-based DL for the information-rich voltage-time series and gradient boosting-based XGB for the ECG measurements25. To determine whether demographic features (age and sex) add incremental predictive value to the performance of models trained on ECGs only, we developed and reported the models in the following manner: (a) ECG only (DL: ECG trace); (b) ECG + age, sex (DL: ECG trace, age, sex [which is the primary model presented in this study]); and (c) XGB: ECG measurement, age, sex.

We employed a multi-label classification methodology with binary labelsi.e., presence (yes) or absence (no) for each one of the 15 diagnosesto estimate the probability of a new patient having each of these conditions. Since the input for the models that used ECG measurements was structured tabular data, we trained gradient-boosted tree ensembles (XGB)38 models, whereas we used deep convolutional neural networks for the models with ECG voltage-time series traces. For both XGB and DL models, we used 90% of training data to train the model, and used the remaining 10% as a tuning set to track the performance loss and to early stop the training process, to reduce the chance of overfitting39. For DL, we learned a single ResNet model for a multi-class multi-label task10, which mapped each ECG signal into 15 values, corresponds to the probability of presence of each of the 15 diagnoses. On the other hand, for gradient boosting, we learned 15 distinct binary XGB models, each mapping the ECG signal to the probability for one of the individual labels. The methodological details of our XGB and DL model implementations have been described previously25.

Evaluation design: we used a 60/40 split on the data for training and evaluation. We divided the overall ECG dataset into random splits of 60% for the model development (which used fivefold internal cross-validation for training and fine-tuning the final models) and the remaining 40% as the holdout set for final external validation. We ensured that ECGs from the same patient were not shared between development and evaluation data or between the train/test folds of internal cross-validation. As mentioned earlier, since we expect the deployment scenario of our prediction system to be at the point of care, we evaluated our models using only the patients first ECG in a given episode, which was captured during an ED visit or hospitalization. The number of ECGs, episodes, and patients used in overall data and in experimental splits are presented in Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 5. In addition to the primary evaluation, we extend our testing to include all ECGs from the holdout set, to demonstrate the versatility of DL model in handling ECGs captured at any point during an episode.

Furthermore, we performed Leave-one-hospital-out validation using two large tertiary care hospitals to assess the robustness of our model with respect to distributional differences between the hospital sites. To guarantee complete separation between our training and testing sets, we omitted ECGs of patients admitted to both the training and testing hospitals during the study period, as illustrated in Supplementary Figure 1. Finally, to underscore the applicability of DL model in screening scenarios, we present additional evaluations by consolidating 15 disease labels into a composite prediction, thereby enhancing diagnostic yield20.

We reported area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC, equivalent to C-index) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Also, we generated F1 Score, Specificity, Recall, Precision (equivalent to PPV) and Accuracy after binarizing the prediction probabilities into diagnosis/non-diagnosis classes using optimal cut-points derived from the training set Youdens index40. We also used the calibration metric Brier Score41 (where a smaller score indicates better calibration) to evaluate whether predicted probabilities agree with observed proportions.

Sex and Pacemaker Subgroups: We investigated our models performance in specific patient subgroups, based on the patients sex. We also investigated any potential bias with ECGs captured in the presence of cardiac pacing (including pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [ICD]) or ventricular assist devices (VAD) since ECG interpretation can be difficult in these situations, by comparing the model performances in ECGs without pacemakers in the holdout set versus the overall holdout set (including ECGs both with or without pacemakers) (Fig. 1). The diagnosis and procedure codes used for identifying the presence of pacemakers are provided in the Supplementary Table 7.

Model comparisons: For each evaluation, we report the performances from the fivefold internal cross-validation as well as the final performances in the holdout set, using the same training and testing splits for the various modeling scenarios. The performances were compared between models by sampling holdout instances with replacement in pairwise manner, to generate a total of 10,000 bootstrap replicates of pairwise differences in AUROCi.e., each comparing without pacemakers versus the original. The difference in the model performances was said to be statistically significant if the 95% confidence intervals of the mean pairwise differences in AUROCs did not include the zero value for the compared models.

Visualizations: We used feature importance values based on information gained to identify the ECG measurements that were key contributors to the diagnosis prediction in the XGB models. Further, we visualized the gradient activation maps that contributed to the models prediction of diagnosis in our DL models using Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (GradCAM)42 on the last convolutional layer. Also, we used feature importance values based on information gain to identify the ECG measurements that were key contributors to the diagnosis prediction in the XGB models.

Read the original post:
Development and validation of machine learning algorithms based on electrocardiograms for cardiovascular ... - Nature.com