70/100

Moderate evidence

Trace: a gain and a problemPublished recordHealthThe Trace

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

Truvace record
TRV-2026-2634raw data (JSON)
Version
v1Published
First published
Evidence type
Controlled or validated comparison
Sources
1 sourcePeer-reviewed
sha256
e873fd8bb698…check it

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…

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.

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

Cite this record

v1

Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2634, v1: “Machine learning-driven ECG screening for early coronary artery disease detection.” Truvace, 2026-11-12. /record/TRV-2026-2634 (accessed on the day you copy it). sha256 e873fd8bb698783f…

Change history

1 version

Every change made to this record since it was first published, and why. Nothing has changed since it went up.

  1. Publishedv1e873fd8bb698…

    Certified into the record

Check this record hasn’t been altered

Check this record hasn’t been altered
How to check it yourself, without trusting this page

Download any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2634 and hash its canonical field yourself, for example with shasum -a 256. You should get its content_hash. Each version’s text also ends with prev:and the hash of the version before it (version 1 points to 64 zeros). If anyone had changed a single character of any version after it was saved, those hashes wouldn’t line up.