ReviewEuropean heart journal. Digital health2024
Machine learning in cardiac stress test interpretation: a systematic review.
Review in European heart journal. Digital health, 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.
- From Exposure to Atherosclerosis: Mechanistic Insights into Phthalate-Driven Ischemic Heart Disease and Prevention Strategies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Predictive value of combined electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with established coronary artery disease: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence implementation in automated heart chambers quantification during pharmacological stress echocardiography.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- AI Characterisation of Discordance Profiles Between Stress Electrocardiogram and Myocardial Tomoscintigraphy Using Random Forest XGBoost and SHAP.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- [Arrhythmias education-current considerations with a focus on ECG teaching].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Ischemic Heart Disease Prevention.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Deep learning models for predicting heart disease risk using the UCI database: methods, performance, and clinical context.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2025Article
- Charting the Unseen: How Non-Invasive Imaging Could Redefine Cardiovascular Prevention.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
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
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading health challenge worldwide. Exercise stress testing is a foundational non-invasive diagnostic tool. Nonetheless, its variable accuracy prompts the exploration of more reliable methods. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML), including deep learning and natural language processing, have shown potential in refining the interpretation of stress testing data. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of ML applications in stress electrocardiogram (ECG) and stress echocardiography for CAD prognosis. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were used as databases. We analysed the ML models, outcomes, and performance metrics. Overall, seven relevant studies were identified. Machine-learning applications in stress ECGs resulted in sensitivity and specificity improvements. Some models achieved rates of above 96% in both metrics and reduced false positives by up to 21%. In stress echocardiography, ML models demonstrated an increase in diagnostic precision. Some models achieved specificity and sensitivity rates of up to 92.7 and 84.4%, respectively. Natural language processing applications enabled the categorization of stress echocardiography reports, with accuracy rates nearing 98%. Limitations include a small, retrospective study pool and the exclusion of nuclear stress testing, due to its well-documented status. This review indicates the potential of artificial intelligence applications in refining CAD stress testing assessment. Further development for real-world use is warranted.
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.