70/100

Moderate evidence

AI reading ECG images spots 87% of coronary disease cases, but half of healthy patients flagged

Study title: Machine learning-driven ECG screening for early coronary artery disease detection

Evidence type
Controlled or validated comparison
Sample
n = 15,890
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
Published
2 min read

Study title: Machine learning-driven ECG screening for early coronary artery disease detection

A multicentric study trained a DenseNet-121 neural network on 15,890 paired 12-lead ECG images and coronary angiography or coronary CT angiography results to predict coronary artery disease (CAD). On the test set of 1,339 samples, the model reached a ROC-AUC of 0.80 and caught 618 of 708 CAD cases.

Read the study abstract

BackgroundElectrocardiography (ECG) is inexpensive and widely available, yet its ability to detect early and nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) is limited when interpreted using conventional criteria. We evaluated whether a deep learning model applied to standard 12-lead-ECG images can identify angiographically confirmed CAD and enable clinically meaningful risk stratification in a real-world population.MethodsIn this multicentric study, 15,890 ECG-angiography pairs (12-lead ECG paired with coronary an…

Machine learning-driven ECG screening for early coronary artery disease detection
"Medical ultrasound examination" by Christopher Hubenthal, U.S. Air Force, public domain.

58Gain side

How the two sides scoreClose call

60Problem side

The gain

In a multicentric study, a deep learning model reading routine ECG images detected 618 of 708 angiography-confirmed coronary artery disease cases (87% sensitivity) on a 1,339-sample test set, with a ROC-AUC of 0.80.

The problem

In the same multicentric ECG study, the deep learning model correctly classified only 317 of 631 people without coronary artery disease (50% specificity) on the test set, and its sensitivity fell to 0.67 on the later validation cohort of 2,168 samples.

A fixed formula sets both scores from the evidence and its sources. Reader votes don’t move them.

What the scores mean

G is the gain side, out of 100. It goes up when the gain is specific, when it measurably helped people and when the sources behind it are strong.

P is the problem side, out of 100. It goes up when the problem is specific, when it measurably hurt people and when the sources behind it are strong.

In brief

The trade-off was many false alarms: at the 0.50 threshold, specificity was 50%, meaning 317 of 631 people without CAD were correctly classified. On a later, independent cohort of 2,168 samples collected prospectively from February to May 2024, ROC-AUC was 0.81, but sensitivity fell to 0.67 while specificity rose to 0.78.

The authors conclude that routinely acquired ECG images may support low-cost, scalable CAD risk stratification. The negative predictive value of 0.57 on the temporal cohort suggests a negative result would not reliably rule out disease in a population where 64% had CAD.

Main points

  1. The study included 15,890 ECG-angiography pairs collected between November 2021 and January 2024 across multiple centres.
  2. The model was trained on 13,299 samples, validated on 1,002 and tested on 1,339, with CAD prevalence of 52.9% in the test set.
  3. Test-set ROC-AUC was 0.80 and PR-AUC 0.83; sensitivity was 87% and specificity 50% at the 0.50 threshold.
  4. A prospectively collected temporal validation cohort of 2,168 samples (64% CAD) gave ROC-AUC 0.81 and PR-AUC 0.83.
  5. On that cohort, sensitivity was 0.67, specificity 0.78, PPV 0.84 and NPV 0.57.
  6. Simulations of varying disease prevalence were used to check how PPV and NPV trends held across different populations.

The full story

Standard ECG is cheap and widely available but performs poorly at detecting early and nonobstructive coronary artery disease when read using conventional criteria. The researchers asked whether a convolutional neural network applied to ECG images alone could identify angiographically confirmed disease in a real-world population.

The model, a DenseNet-121, was trained on ECG images paired with coronary angiography or coronary CT angiography results. Performance was assessed with ROC-AUC, PR-AUC and standard diagnostic metrics, and prevalence-dependent behaviour was summarised with PPV and NPV prevalence curves (AUCppv and AUCnpv).

Results were consistent in overall discrimination (ROC-AUC 0.80 on the test set, 0.81 on the later cohort) but the balance between catching disease and avoiding false positives shifted between datasets. The authors describe the findings as supporting risk stratification rather than a standalone diagnosis.

What this doesn’t fix

Specificity was only 50% on the test set, and on the temporal validation cohort sensitivity dropped to 0.67 with an NPV of 0.57, so the model's operating balance varied between datasets.

Sources

1 on file
  1. Asian Cardiovascular and Thoracic Annalsdoi:10.1177/02184923261503901
    Peer-reviewed2026-11-11

Talk it over

Three questions to start on, two more if you have time
The model caught 618 of 708 coronary artery disease cases but correctly classified only 317 of 631 people without it. How would you weigh the cases found against the false alarms?

Start with a question

AI reading ECG images spots 87% of coronary disease cases, but half of healthy patients flaggedhttps://truvace.com/item/machine-learning-driven-ecg-screening-for-early-coronary-artery-disease-detectio

  1. The model caught 618 of 708 coronary artery disease cases but correctly classified only 317 of 631 people without it. How would you weigh the cases found against the false alarms?

    Answer in the thread
  2. Sensitivity fell to 0.67 on the later cohort of 2,168 samples collected from February to May 2024. What does that shift tell us about how far results from the test set carry to new patients?

    Answer in the thread
  3. The authors describe the model as supporting risk stratification, not standalone diagnosis. If you were a cardiologist told a patient's ECG was negative, with an NPV of 0.57, what would you do next?

    Answer in the thread
If you have more time
  • The 15,890 ECG images were paired with angiography or coronary CT angiography results, so the patients had already been sent for those tests. Which other groups of people would you want to see tested before this model was used in a clinic?

    Answer in the thread
  • The researchers ran simulations of varying disease prevalence to see how PPV and NPV held up, and 64% of the later cohort had coronary artery disease. What local prevalence would you want to know before a hospital you know adopted such a tool?

    Answer in the thread

What readers say