Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Bridging the gap from clinical to home ECG: quantifying and overcoming accuracy loss in AI-enabled single-lead ECG models.

Created on 07 Jul 2026

Authors

Chin Lin, Wei-Ting Liu, Kai-Chieh Chen, Dung-Jang Tsai, Da-Wei Chang, Tsung-Neng Tsai, Cheng-Chung Cheng, Chih-Yuan Lin, Yuan-Hao Chen, Chien-Sung Tsai, Shih-Hua Lin, Chin-Sheng Lin

Published in

NPJ digital medicine. Volume 9. Issue 1. Jul 06, 2026. Epub Jul 06, 2026.

Abstract

AI-enabled electrocardiogram (ECG) models trained on 12-lead recordings may underperform on home single-lead devices due to device and context domain shift. We trained Lead-I models using 676,192 ECGs from 246,874 patients and externally validated them in 219,231 ECGs from 65,338 patients. We evaluated two methodological control indicators (gender and age) and seven clinical phenotypes [90-day mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), left atrial diameter, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), hemoglobin, and estimated glomerular filtration rate]. Cross-hospital validation showed minimal overall degradation (AUC decline <0.03). In contrast, direct deployment to consumer ECGs from Apple Watch (n = 9835) and QOCA ECG102D (n = 31,517) produced substantial accuracy losses. After fine-tuning, AUCs across eight classification tasks for the Apple Watch and QOCA ECG102D were significantly improved, with high performance for low EF (0.85/0.86) and more modest performance for elevated PASP (0.73/0.68) and anemia (0.73/0.69). Performance was higher in sinus rhythm than atrial fibrillation. Learning curves indicated that approximately 500-1000 labeled ECGs are required for reliable fine-tuning; smaller sets can be harmful. We release an evaluation-only HOME dataset to facilitate reproducible benchmarking of cross-device generalization. Models should be interpreted as screening or triage tools, not standalone diagnostic tests.

PMID:
42410026
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 07 Jul 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 11
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement