Vol 79, No 6 (2021)
Original article
Published online: 2021-04-16

open access

Page views 1660
Article views/downloads 1931
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Machine learning versus classical electrocardiographic criteria for echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy in a pre-participation cohort

Daniel YZ Lim1, Gerald Sng1, Wilbert HH Ho1, Wang Hankun1, Ching-Hui Sia123, Joshua SW Lee1, Xiayan Shen12, Benjamin YQ Tan145, Edward CY Lee1, Mayank Dalakoti12, Wang Kang Jie15, Clarence KW Kwan1, Weien Chow4, Ru San Tan6, Carolyn SP Lam6, Terrance SJ Chua6, Tee Joo Yeo12, Daniel TT Chong16
Pubmed: 33885269
Kardiol Pol 2021;79(6):654-661.

Abstract

Background: Classical electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) are well studied in older populations and patients with hypertension. Their utility in young pre-participation cohorts is unclear.
Aims: We aimed to develop machine learning models for detection of echocardiogram-diagnosed LVH from ECG, and compare these models with classical criteria.
Methods: Between November 2009 and December 2014, pre-participation screening ECG and subsequent echocardiographic data was collected from 17 310 males aged 16 to 23, who reported for medical screening prior to military conscription. A final diagnosis of LVH was made during echocardiography, defined by a left ventricular mass index >115 g/m2. The continuous and threshold forms of classical ECG criteria (Sokolow–Lyon, Romhilt–Estes, Modified Cornell, Cornell Product, and Cornell) were compared against machine learning models (Logistic Regression, GLMNet, Random Forests, Gradient Boosting Machines) using receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis. We also compared the important variables identified by machine learning models with the input variables of classical criteria.
Results: Prevalence of echocardiographic LVH in this population was 0.82% (143/17310). Classical ECG criteria had poor performance in predicting LVH. Machine learning methods achieved superior performance: Logistic Regression (area under the curve [AUC], 0.811; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.738–0.884), GLMNet (AUC, 0.873; 95% CI, 0.817–0.929), Random Forest (AUC, 0.824; 95% CI, 0.749–0.898), Gradient Boosting Machines (AUC, 0.800; 95% CI, 0.738–0.862).
Conclusions: Machine learning methods are superior to classical ECG criteria in diagnosing echocardiographic LVH in the context of pre-participation screening.




Polish Heart Journal (Kardiologia Polska)