Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 9;2(4):626–634. doi: 10.1093/ehjdh/ztab080

Table 5.

Response of electrocardiographic artificial intelligence and Cox proportional hazards regression models to follow-up electrocardiograms

Scenarios ECG time TP FP TN FN Specificity Sensitivity Negative predictive value Positive predictive value
1 Baseline 116 764 1819 2 0.7042 0.9831 0.9990 0.1318
Follow-up 116 764 1819 2 0.7042 0.9831 0.9990 0.1318
2 Baseline 108 515 2068 10 0.8006 0.9153 0.9952 0.1734
Follow-up 116 528 2055 2 0.7956 0.9831 0.9990 0.1801
3 Baseline 93 261 2322 25 0.8990 0.7881 0.9893 0.2627
Follow-up 111 258 2325 7 0.9001 0.9407 0.9970 0.3008
4 Baseline 77 127 2456 41 0.9508 0.6525 0.9836 0.3775
Follow-up 95 123 2460 23 0.9524 0.8051 0.9907 0.4358

ECG, electrocardiogram; FN, false negative; FP, fasle positive; TN, true negative; TP, true positive.