Artificial intelligence enabled ECG screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a systematic review.

Screening for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), defined as reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), deserves renewed interest as the medical treatment for the prevention and progression of heart failure improves. We aimed to review the updated literature to outline the potential and caveats of using artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography (AIeECG) as an opportunistic screening tool for LVSD.We searched PubMed and Cochrane for variations of the terms "ECG," "Heart Failure," "systolic dysfunction," and "Artificial Intelligence" from January 2010 to April 2022 and selected studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy and confounders of using AIeECG to detect LVSD.Out of 40 articles, we identified 15 relevant studies; eleven retrospective cohorts, three prospective cohorts, and one case series. Although various LVEF thresholds were used, AIeECG detected LVSD with a median AUC of 0.90 (IQR from 0.85 to 0.95), a sensitivity of 83.3% (IQR from 73 to 86.9%) and a specificity of 87% (IQR from 84.5 to 90.9%). AIeECG algorithms succeeded across a wide range of sex, age, and comorbidity and seemed especially useful in non-cardiology settings and when combined with natriuretic peptide testing. Furthermore, a false-positive AIeECG indicated a future development of LVSD. No studies investigated the effect on treatment or patient outcomes.This systematic review corroborates the arrival of a new generic biomarker, AIeECG, to improve the detection of LVSD. AIeECG, in addition to natriuretic peptides and echocardiograms, will improve screening for LVSD, but prospective randomized implementation trials with added therapy are needed to show cost-effectiveness and clinical significance.

Learning to Quantify Emphysema Extent: What Labels Do We Need?

Accurate assessment of pulmonary emphysema is crucial to assess disease severity and subtype, to monitor disease progression, and to predict lung cancer risk. However, visual assessment is time-consuming and subject to substantial inter-rater variability while standard densitometry approaches to quantify emphysema remain inferior to visual scoring. We explore if machine learning methods that learn from a large dataset of visually assessed CT scans can provide accurate estimates of emphysema extent and if methods that learn from emphysema extent scoring can outperform algorithms that learn only from emphysema presence scoring. Four Multiple Instance Learning classifiers, trained on emphysema presence labels, and five Learning with Label Proportions classifiers, trained on emphysema extent labels, are compared. Performance is evaluated on 600 low-dose CT scans from the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial and we find that learning from emphysema presence labels, which are much easier to obtain, gives equally good performance to learning from emphysema extent labels. The best performing Multiple Instance Learning and Learning with Label Proportions classifiers, achieve intra-class correlation coefficients around 0.90 and average overall agreement with raters of 78% and 79% compared to an inter-rater agreement of 83%.