Temporal Variability and Influence of Measurement Conditions of AI ‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Risk Estimation
Résumé fourni par la source
Background: Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been developed to identify patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) during sinus rhythm, information on its variability remains limited. We evaluated the reproducibility and effect of recording condition on the estimation of AF risk using an electrocardiography (ECG) machine equipped with an AI-based program. Methods: We extracted two ECG data from a single ECG test in 149 patients to evaluate reproducibility within 4 min. We also recorded ECG signals under 12 conditions (standard, two conditions shifting precordial electrodes, five conditions moving limb electrodes to the torso, three conditions contaminating noise, and reproducibility over 15 min) in 30 participants to evaluate changes from the standard. The results of the AF risk estimation are expressed at four levels. Results: The rate of participants within one level of error was 95% for reproducibility within 4 min and 87% for reproducibility over 15 min. Shifting the precordial electrodes upward or downward and replacing the left leg electrode with the torso electrode frequently caused a two- or three-level change. In clinical information, increased brain natriuretic peptide tended to increase the variability. Conclusions: The AF risk estimated by the AI-based program exhibited temporal variability. Shifting the precordial electrodes influenced AI-based AF risk estimation.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- Temporal Variability and Influence of Measurement Conditions of <scp>AI</scp> ‐Based Atrial Fibrillation Risk Estimation
- Date Crossref
- 01/02/2026
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.