ReviewCureus2025
AI Tools for Heart Failure Management: A Comprehensive Review of Potential, Pitfalls, and Predictive Analytics.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep Learning and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF), as a sequela of cardiac insult, has long been recognized for the excessive burden it places on healthcare systems worldwide. Advancements have been made in both the interventional and pharmacological landscapes related to the disease, with monumental strides achieved in reducing morbidity and mortality. However, patients continue to live in fear of the disease as they face the risk of repeated hospitalizations, adverse outcomes, and the financial strain it imposes. Despite the vast amount of literature available to clinicians, bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and clinical practice remains challenging due to persistent knowledge gaps. Integrating clinical data, identifying patterns in key investigations, and making informed clinical decisions are difficult, particularly when tailoring treatments to each patient's unique characteristics. AI has shown great potential in addressing these challenges and assisting clinicians. Through this review, we aim to demonstrate how AI algorithms and models, such as machine learning, deep learning, and natural language processing, can support various aspects of HF management. This narrative review was conducted through a comprehensive and structured literature search on PubMed. Screening identified 163 articles that met the inclusion criteria from an initial total of 1,617. Data extraction included author name, study type, digital object identifier, study objective, sample size, key findings, and relevance to AI applications in HF management. Recent literature on AI and HF highlights the significant impact of AI on expanding the scope of practice in this field. Several key findings stand out: (1) AI has enhanced the detection of subclinical HF (i.e., the presence of HF without noticeable symptoms); (2) AI algorithms, when compared to traditional methods, demonstrate greater accuracy in identifying the most suitable treatment for HF according to patient characteristics; and (3) human-machine collaborative models have proven superior in predicting one-year readmission rates for patients with HF. Several challenges, such as algorithmic bias, data security concerns, the "black box" nature of AI, and other risks of bias, have also been identified. Nevertheless, with ethical oversight and regular clinical engagement, AI continues to demonstrate significant potential in HF management. With the latest advances, AI is poised to play an even greater role in transforming HF care, shifting it toward more proactive and data-driven models.
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.