Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41216029›Full record

ReviewMethodsX2025

A comprehensive survey of artificial intelligence methods for cardiovascular disease detection: Recent advances and future challenges.

Anita Gunjal, T Judgi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in MethodsX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anita GunjalResearch Scholar, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India.
T JudgiSchool of Computing, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global health is increasingly concerned with and interested in Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD), which necessitates new and innovative ways of identifying them earlier and treating them more effectively. AI techniques, such as ML and DL provide a promising pathway to address these challenges. This study investigated the interplay between advancing technology and medical science, focusing on AI's application in improving CVD diagnosis. Traditionally, CVD diagnosis has relied on clinical assessments, laboratory tests, and imaging modalities such as echocardiography and angiography. Several researchers are using online datasets as well as utilizing inexpensive sensors to collect data in the healthcare field to carry out their research to develop different ML and DL algorithms that can detect diseases automatically. Feature-based ML algorithms, CNNs, RNNs, and hybrid models are commonly used techniques in this area. This study highlights the importance of ML and DL in cardiac health and emphasizes precise and enhanced prediction of cardiovascular disease. The developments in state-of-art technologies and the increasing influence of cardiovascular disease on public health, this study attempts to present an in-depth analysis of the topic based on current AI-based methods used for CVD management based on reports from Electronic Health Records (EHR) and Electrocardiogram (ECG). It shows areas which requires improvement, and proposes avenues for future investigation. This study aims to direct future advancements in diagnostic tools by highlighting the critical role of AI in rethinking methods to CVD diagnosis and treatment approaches to enhance the patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceCardiovascular diseaseDeep learningDisease diagnosisHealthcareMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID41216029
PMCPMC12596998

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.