Arrhythmias & electrophysiology

Foundation models for electrocardiogram interpretation: clinical implications

Eur Heart JPublished Diagnostic accuracy study

An erratum to this article was published (Eur Heart J, 15 May 2026 ↗)

Authors' conclusion

This study establishes SSL as a promising paradigm for ECG analysis, particularly in settings with limited annotated data, enhancing accessibility, generalizability, and fairness in AI-driven cardiac diagnostics.

Study context

Population
12-lead electrocardiogram (ECGs); 77 cardiac conditions; 7 private multilingual healthcare systems and 4 public ECG repositoriesover 1 million training ECGs
Comparison
DeepECG-SSL vs DeepECG-SL ECG foundation models
Outcome
Micro-averaged AUROC across 77 cardiac conditions for ECG interpretation
Methodological detailsmulticentre, external validation, Open-source models; trained on over 1 million ECGs with automated free-text extraction from ECG reports
  • Multicentre
  • External validation
  • Open-source models; trained on over 1 million ECGs with automated free-text extraction from ECG reports

Performance

As reported in the abstract

Micro-averaged AUROC, 77 conditions
Test or modelAUROC internal (MHI-ds)AUROC external publicAUROC external private
DeepECG-SSL0.990 (95% CI: 0.990, 0.990)0.981 (95% CI: 0.981, 0.981)0.983 (95% CI: 0.983, 0.983)
DeepECG-SL0.992 (95% CI: 0.992, 0.992)0.980 (95% CI: 0.980, 0.980)0.983 (95% CI: 0.983, 0.984)

AUROC internal (MHI-ds)

DeepECG-SSL0.990 (95% CI: 0.990, 0.990)
DeepECG-SL0.992 (95% CI: 0.992, 0.992)

AUROC external public

DeepECG-SSL0.981 (95% CI: 0.981, 0.981)
DeepECG-SL0.980 (95% CI: 0.980, 0.980)

AUROC external private

DeepECG-SSL0.983 (95% CI: 0.983, 0.983)
DeepECG-SL0.983 (95% CI: 0.983, 0.984)

Further findings

OutcomeDeepECG-SSLDeepECG-SLP value
LQTS genotype classification (n = 127 ECGs)P = 0.026
AUROC0.9310.850
5-year AF risk prediction (n = 132 050 ECGs)P < 0.001
AUROC0.7420.734
LVEF ≤40% classification (n = 25 252 ECGs)P < 0.001
AUROC0.9260.917
LQTS detection (n = 934 ECGs)Comparable performanceP = 0.117
AUROC0.7670.735

Fairness by age and sex

Minimal disparities for both models (TPR and FPR difference)
<0.1

Original publication

Foundation models for electrocardiogram interpretation: clinical implications. Eur Heart J. Published 22 January 2026. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf1119

Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →

Get them every week

New studies on this topic in My Week and in your Monday e-mail.

We e-mail you a sign-in link and a code. No password, no spam.