ReviewCureus2024
Artificial Intelligence and Its Role in Diagnosing Heart Failure: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitochondrial cardiovascular diseases: molecular mechanisms, multi-omics exploration and therapeutic strategies.Journal of advanced research · 2026Review
- Revolutionizing Heart Failure Management With Artificial Intelligence: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Innovations.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in early heart failure detection: from algorithms to bedside integration.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- The Narrative Review: Advancements in Heart Failure Diagnosis and Management using Artificial Intelligence: A New Era of Patient Care.Current cardiology reviews · 2026Review
- AI Tools for Heart Failure Management: A Comprehensive Review of Potential, Pitfalls, and Predictive Analytics.Cureus · 2025Review
- Multimodal AI in Biomedicine: Pioneering the Future of Biomaterials, Diagnostics, and Personalized Healthcare.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Artificial intelligence in heart failure - a comprehensive literature review.Cardiology journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is prevalent globally. It is a dynamic disease with varying definitions and classifications due to multiple pathophysiologies and etiologies. The diagnosis, clinical staging, and treatment of HF become complex and subjective, impacting patient prognosis and mortality. Technological advancements, like artificial intelligence (AI), have been significant roleplays in medicine and are increasingly used in cardiovascular medicine to transform drug discovery, clinical care, risk prediction, diagnosis, and treatment. Medical and surgical interventions specific to HF patients rely significantly on early identification of HF. Hospitalization and treatment costs for HF are high, with readmissions increasing the burden. AI can help improve diagnostic accuracy by recognizing patterns and using them in multiple areas of HF management. AI has shown promise in offering early detection and precise diagnoses with the help of ECG analysis, advanced cardiac imaging, leveraging biomarkers, and cardiopulmonary stress testing. However, its challenges include data access, model interpretability, ethical concerns, and generalizability across diverse populations. Despite these ongoing efforts to refine AI models, it suggests a promising future for HF diagnosis. After applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, we searched for data available on PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library and found 150 relevant papers. This review focuses on AI's significant contribution to HF diagnosis in recent years, drastically altering HF treatment and outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.