Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41301204›Full record

ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence and Electrocardiography for Cardiovascular Disease Diagnosis.

Hernando Velandia, Aldo Pardo, María Isabel Vera, Miguel Vera

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

4 authors.

Hernando VelandiaUniversidad de Pamplona, Pamplona 543050, Colombia.
Aldo PardoUniversidad de Pamplona, Pamplona 543050, Colombia.
María Isabel VeraHospital Universitario Erasmo Meoz, Cúcuta 540004, Colombia.
Miguel VeraFacultad de Ciencias Básicas y Biomédicas, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Cúcuta 540004, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0001-7167-6356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of death globally. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) are crucial diagnostic tools; however, their traditional interpretations exhibit limited sensitivity and reproducibility. This systematic review discusses the recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), including deep learning and machine learning, applied to ECG analysis for CVD detection. It examines over 100 studies from 2019 to 2025, classifying AI applications by disease type (heart failure, myocardial infarction, and atrial fibrillation), model architecture (convolutional neural networks, long short-term memory, and hybrid models), and methodological innovation (signal denoising, synthetic data generation, and explainable AI). Comparative tables and conceptual figures highlight performance metrics, dataset characteristics, and implementation challenges. Our findings indicated that AI models outperform traditional methods, especially in terms of detecting subclinical conditions and enabling real-time monitoring via wearable technologies. Nonetheless, issues such as demographic bias, lack of dataset diversity, and regulatory hurdles persist. The review concludes by offering actionable recommendations to enhance clinical translation, equity, and transparency in AI-ECG applications. These insights aim to guide interdisciplinary efforts toward the safe and effective adoption of AI in cardiovascular diagnostics.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecardiovascular diseaseelectrocardiographyexplainable AImachine learningsynthetic ECGwearable devices

Identifiers

PMID41301204
PMCPMC12649912

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.