Machine learning to classify left ventricular hypertrophy using ECG feature extraction by variational autoencoder

Patient selection and data retrieval

An automated retrospective retrieval of records was performed from our clinical database at the University of Kansas Medical Center between May 2010 and Jan 2022 to search for ECG and echocardiogram performed on the same patient within 45 days of each other. Echocardiograms-ECG pairs with echocardiographic left ventricular mass index (LVMi) >95 g/m² for females and >115 g/m² for males were labelled as ‘LVH’ while rest of the pairs were assigned to the ‘no LVH’ group (15). The study was conducted under an approval from the Institutional Review Board.

Data extraction

ECGs were acquired with Philips 12-lead ECG machines. The 12-lead ECG 10-second and 1200-ms-representative-beat signals along with standard features like heart rate, PR interval, etc. were exported to a research SQL data server. Echocardiograms were standard clinical studies performed for clinical indications both as outpatient and inpatient evaluations. Individual echocardiogram numeric variables including diastolic measurements of left ventricular internal diameter (LVIDd), interventricular septum (IVSd) and posterior wall (PWd) from 2D parasternal long-axis view were extracted using a backend query in HERON (Healthcare Enterprise Repository for Ontological Narration), a search discovery tool that facilitates searches on various hospital electronic data sources (18,19). The query results were recombined using medical record number, encounter number and study date to generate back the list of variables belonging to each echocardiogram study. Left ventricular mass was calculated using the American Society of Echocardiography recommended formula: 0.8 × 1.04[(LVIDd + IVSd + PWd)³ and indexed to body surface area (20).

ECG processing

The details of ECG processing performed using Python are provided in prior publications (15,21,22). In summary, vectorcardiographic X-Y-Z-lead ECGs were constructed from 12-lead ECGs using Kors’ matrix (23). Using these orthogonal X, Y, Z leads, the root-mean-square (RMS or 3D) ECG was constructed. Voltage-time integrals (VTIs) were obtained by the integration of the instantaneous voltage over the duration of QRS (VTI_QRS) or QRS-T (VTI_QRST).

Traditional Criteria and Univariable Models

Based on review of literature, we selected 5 widely used ECG-based LVH diagnostic criteria for comparison, i.e. Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (max S + S_v4), Cornell voltage (R_avL + S_v3), Cornell voltage-duration product (VDP), Sokolow-Lyon criteria (S_V1 + max R _{(V5 or V6)}), and Gubner-Ungerleider critera (R_I + S_III). We also selected 3 ECG variables for comparison namely QRS duration, amplitude_QRS-3D, and VTI_QRS-3D (21,22,24). The latter 2 were calculated off the QRS from the RMS/3D ECG.

Variational Autoencoder

We trained a variational autoencoder (VAE) on 1.18 million unlabeled ECG signals to encode a 0.75-sec segment centered on the representative beat ECG signal into 60 variables (30 variables for X, Y, Z leads and 30 for RMS of these leads). The VAE has a dual neural network architecture with the encoder taking the ECG input and outputting 30 latent variables, and the decoder inputting the 30 latent variables and outputting the ECG signal. The network is rewarded in training to encode the signal such as to learn accurate reconstruction of the original signal from the latent variables alone. Our VAEs are able to reconstruct the original signal back from the latent variables with high fidelity (16,17,25). The X-Y-Z-lead and RMS/3D representative-beat ECGs included in this study were processed using these 2 VAEs to generate latent encodings or variables.

ECG Features

The following features were available for ML model training:

• Summary features like heart rate, PR interval, QRS duration, corrected QT interval (26), frontal plane QRS axis, etc.

• From 16 leads—each of 12-leads, 3 X-Y-Z-leads and 1 RMS ECG—we obtained QRS amplitudes, VTI_QRS, VTI_QRST, R-wave amplitudes, S-wave amplitudes.

• 30 latent variables each from VAEs trained to reconstruct the X-Y-Z-lead and RMS representative-lead ECGs.

• Sex

Model Training and Testing

Approximately 10% of the medical record numbers in the dataset were withheld as the testing set, and remainder used for model training (Figure 1). We trained the following ML architectures on the training set – logistic regression, random forests, light gradient boosted machine (LGBM), residual neural network (ResNet), multilayered perceptron (MLP) and CNN. The CNN was trained on the representative-beat X-Y-Z-lead ECG signal, and the other 5 ML models trained on the extracted ECG features (as above) plus sex. Sex was provided to the models as the definition of LVH is sex specific. The results are reported from the performance of the trained models in the holdout test set. We also report the models’ performance in 4 subgroups based on intraventricular conduction – QRS duration <120 ms, typical right bundle branch block (RBBB, QRS duration ≥120), typical left bundle branch block (LBBB, QRS duration ≥120 ms), and interventricular conduction delay (IVCD, QRS duration ≥ 120 ms but not meeting either RBBB or LBBB criteria). American Heart Association-American College of Cardiology Foundation-Heart Rhythm Society criteria for bundle branch blocks were used (27).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Data pipeline for model training and testing

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are reported as mean ± standard deviation, and categorical variables as percentages. Comparisons were made using Student’s t-test for continuous variables and ²-test for categorical variables. Statistical analysis was conducted in Python version 3.12.7 and 2-tailed p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Patient characteristics

A total of 250,596 ECG-echocardiogram pairs were included, with 149,612 (59.7%) pairs belonging to females. The mean age of the overall population of ECG-echocardiogram samples was 63.8 ± 15.3 years. In the training sets, 40,839 (28.2%) of the female samples and 23,309 (24.3%) male samples had LVH on echocardiography. The testing set consisted of 25,263 ECG-echocardiogram pairs. In the testing set, 4470 (27.8%) female samples and 2672 (24.6%) male samples had LVH. The detailed distributions of the ECG and echocardiographic variables in the testing set are shown in Table 1 and for the training set in Supplementary Table 1. The testing samples were divided into 4 subgroups i.e. narrow QRS <120 ms (n= 215,228), typical RBBB (n=24,800), typical LBBB (n=13,893), and IVCD (n=13,714).

LVH classification models

The testing set performance of the 3 univariable models, 5 traditional criteria and the 6 ML models is summarized in Table 2 and Supplementary Table 2A-D.

Univariable models

Amongst the linear univariable models, VTI_QRS-3D was the best predictor of LVH in the overall population, with an AUROC 0.677. Further, VTI_QRS-3D performed the best in all subgroups except in typical LBBB (narrow QRS 0.659, RBBB 0.674, LBBB 0.585, IVCD 0.578). In typical LBBB, amplitude_QRS-3D performed the best, with an AUROC 0.590.

Traditional criteria

Overall, the performance of traditional ECG criteria for predicting LVH was poor, with AUROCs ranging from 0.507 to 0.647. Cornell VDP was the best performing criteria overall and in narrow QRS subgroup (overall 0.647; narrow QRS 0.643). In other subgroups, Peguero-Lo Presti criteria performed the best (RBBB 0.598, LBBB 0.572, IVCD 0.578). In general, these criteria performed better in females as compared to males.

ML Models

All ML models outperformed the traditional criteria and univariate models. LGBM (AUROC 0.790), MLP (0.789) and ResNet (0.788), which were trained on ECG features including VAE latent encodings and sex, were the best performing models in the overall population. The CNN model, which was trained on the raw ECG signal alone, demonstrated an AUROC 0.767. The ROC curves, separately for females and males, for the top 4 ML models vis-à-vis the best univariable and best traditional criteria are plotted in Figure 2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

ROC curves from the entire testing set for males (left panel) and females (right panel).

When evaluated in the 4 ECG subgroups by intraventricular conduction, models with highest AUROCs were LGBM in narrow QRS (0.785), MLP in RBBB (0.778) and LBBB (0.698) and ResNet in IVCD (0.720). The ROC curves of the best model each amongst univariable, traditional criteria and ML for each of the 4 subgroups separately for females and males is shown in Figure 3 and 4.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

ROC curves for subgroups of testing set in females, narrow QRS (top left), typical right bundle branch block (RBBB, top right), typical left bundle branch block (LBBB, bottom left), intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD, bottom right).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

ROC curves for subgroups of testing set in males, narrow QRS (top left), typical right bundle branch block (RBBB, top right), typical left bundle branch block (LBBB, bottom left), intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD, bottom right)

Linear analysis of LGBM prediction probabilities

LVMi was plotted against the prediction probabilities output generated by LGBM model for females and males as shown in Figure 5. A strong linear trend between prediction probabilities and LVMi can be noted for both females and males (respectively R² 0.851 and 0.833, or correlation coefficient ρ 0.922 and 0.913).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Scatterplots of echocardiographic left ventricular mass indexed (LVMi) plotted against prediction probabilities from the LGBM model for females (left panel) and males (right panel).

Longitudinal analysis of LVH negatives

Among false positives and true negatives produced by the LGBM model in the testing set, we searched for the ECG-echocardiogram pairs where a follow-up echocardiogram >1 year and closest to 5 years later was available for further analysis. We used a 2×2 table to compare the development of LVH in 161 false-positive as compared to the 1,019 true-negative samples. On mean follow-up of 3.9 ± 1.8 years, 54/161 (33.5%) patients in false-positive group, and 130/1019 (12.8%) patients in true-negative group developed LVH. The risk ratio for development of LVH was 2.63 (95% CI 2.01, 3.45) in false-positives compared to true-negatives from the LGBM model (Table 3).

Salient findings

First, traditional ECG-based criteria demonstrate suboptimal performance in diagnosing LVH, with the Cornell VDP showing the highest accuracy among them (AUROC 0.647). Second, univariable models including QRS duration, amplitude_QRS-3D, and VTI_QRS-3D were at par or better than traditional criteria for the diagnosis of LVH, with VTI_QRS-3D achieving the best overall results (AUROC 0.677). Third, ML models outperform both traditional and univariable models, with LGBM models demonstrating the highest performance in our study (overall AUROC 0.790). Last, the performance of traditional, univariable, and ML models vary across sex and QRS morphologies. Further, the LGBM model trained on ECG latent encodings and features successfully captured the underlying trend of LVMi, showing strong correlation and predicting future development of LVH.

Univariable models

Previous studies have demonstrated the utility of linear univariable predictors of LVH, such as QRS duration and QRS-VTIs (22,31). In our analysis, we evaluated QRS duration, amplitude_QRS-3D, and VTI_QRS-3D for predicting LVH across various subgroups. Our findings indicate that these measures generally outperform traditional LVH criteria. Among them, VTI_QRS-3D emerged as the best overall criteria, except in the typical LBBB subgroup, where amplitude_QRS-3D was superior. Similar to Cornell VDP, VTI_QRS-3D incorporates both QRS voltage and duration. Since VTI_QRS-3D is calculated from the reconstructed 3D-orthogonal leads, ostensibly, it captures the QRS complex more comprehensively as compared to Cornell VDP, which uses information from a pair of 2-D leads (V3 and aVL).

Traditional ECG criteria

As demonstrated in previous studies, our analysis reaffirmed the poor discrimination of LVH offered by standard electrocardiographic criteria using a large dataset (28,29). Unlike other voltage-based rules, Cornell VDP, which emerged as the best overall criterion, accounts for both QRS voltage and duration in its calculation. Both of these parameters are affected in LVH (30). In the subset of ECGs with conduction abnormalities (RBBB, LBBB, and IVCD), Peguero-Lo Presti criteria performed better than Cornell VDP. Although the difference in performance was marginal, if this trend is real, it could be explained by obfuscation of LVH-related changes in QRS duration due to QRS prolongation inherent to conduction delays. However, this cannot be verified in our study. Notably, compared to the combined population, individual criteria generally performed better in females and males separately. This underscores the importance of using different cut-off values for females and males, recognizing the sex-based differences in ECGs and definition of LVH. (28,29).

ML models

We tested several ML architectures for LVH prediction, including simple models (LR), tree-based models (RF, LGBM), and neural networks (ResNet, MLP, and CNN). The LGBM model demonstrated the best overall performance (AUROC 0.790), with AUROCs comparable to those of the MLP (0.789) and ResNet (0.788) models. The performance of all the models was worse in the subgroups with conduction abnormalities. MLP was the best performing model in typical RBBB and LBBB subgroups (0.778 and 0.698) while ResNet performed the best in the IVCD subgroup (0.720). Nevertheless, it is important to note that the differences in the performance these models were only marginal.

We further evaluated the interpretability and physiological relevance of the LGBM model. First, we plotted the prediction probabilities from this model against LVMi, which showed a strong linear positive correlation, suggesting that the model captures meaningful physiological patterns rather than artificial class boundaries. Second, we analyzed the false positives produced by this model for future development of LVH, finding that the false positives were more than 2.5 times as likely to develop LVH in the future compared to true negatives. This indicates that the model captures underlying ECG abnormalities even before patients meet the criteria for overt LVH diagnosis.

Previous literature

In a recently published study from China, Zhu et al. used a large dataset comprising of over 90,000 ECGs to create deep learning multilabel classifier algorithms. They achieved AUROCs ranging from 0.78-0.92 using their 12-lead model, and showed that a reduced 4-lead model using lead I, aVR, V1 and V5 had equivalent performance (32). In a Taiwanese study, Liu et al. developed a deep learning model for predicting LVH using approximately 23,000 training samples (33). They achieved high AUROCs ranging from 0.83-0.89 across different testing sets. However, the definition of LVH used in this study was different, using LV mass >186 g for females and >258 g for males. In a South Korean study, Kwon et al. developed an ensemble deep neural network + CNN model using approximately 36,000 training samples, combining information from ECG signal, ECG features, and patient demographics (34). While using higher cut-off values for LVMi (109 g/m² females and 132 g/m² males), their model achieved AUROCs ranging from 0.87-0.88 in testing sets.

In a study from Massachusetts General Hospital, Haimovich et al. create ML models for predicting LVH in specific disease populations like cardiac amyloidosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, aortic stenosis, and others using a total of 34,258 training samples (35). Similar to our approach, they used a pretrained deep learning model to produce latent encodings and trained a simpler classifier for LVH classification although they used full 10-second ECG signal instead of representative beat ECG. Their model achieved AUROCs ranging from 0.69 to 0.96 in various subgroups. Khurshid et al. used data from the UK Biobank to create a CNN model trained on 32,000 samples and achieved AUROCs ranging from 0.62 to 0.65 in predicting LVH. Owing to heterogeneity in study populations, data structures, and labels for LVH, it is difficult to evaluate the performance of models across studies. Nonetheless, the AUROCs attained by ML models in our study are comparable to previous work.

Limitations

Our work is best understood in the context of its limitations. Both training and testing sets for the models were from a single center, and these models might have sub-optimal performance when generalized to other datasets. Further, since the median beat ECGs were derived from a proprietary system, additional steps may be required in processing ECGs from other systems. Additionally, to calculate ECG parameters for traditional criteria and univariate models, automated feature extraction was done, which might not be as accurate as expert-created labels.