Heart tracing models show age gaps that appear rooted in data
Median worst-group gaps in distinguishing outcomes were 0.028 by age, versus 0.004 by sex and 0.016 by race.
Edited by Boris Djordjevic · AgingResearch.News
Researchers computationally tested four artificial intelligence models using 5.4 million electrocardiograms—recordings of the heart’s electrical activity—from 13 cohorts on four continents. They assessed 31 outcomes, with six cohorts held out for testing. They measured how well predictions distinguished people with and without an outcome.
Age-related performance gaps persisted in external testing. Neither model adjustments nor larger labeled training sets closed them. Untrained versions of the networks and a simpler model using standard heart-tracing measurements reproduced the outcome-specific gaps. Pretraining improved prediction scores without changing these gaps. The authors interpreted these results as evidence that the disparity came from age patterns in the recordings and their clinical labels—the outcomes assigned to each recording—rather than from the models.
Why it matters
Clinical prediction tools raise an important aging question: how well do they serve older people? The authors called for reporting performance by age and adjusting prediction cutoffs for different age groups.
Caveats
The study evaluated prediction performance, not whether using these models improved patient care. The report is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.
The paper
Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University of Vienna; Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Cardiovascular Research, Vienna, Austria
medRxiv, Nov 2, 2026, Open access, CC BY, Preprint, not peer-reviewed
Comments
Be the first to comment.