ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Artificial intelligence in cardiology: an updated systematic review with ethical considerations and challenges in implementing artificial intelligence models.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- From assistance to autonomy: AI agent systems in cardiovascular medicine-a review of paradigms, architectures, and clinical translation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Wearable Devices in Cardiovascular Care: A Narrative Review of the Transition Toward Predictive, Preventive, Personalized, and Participatory Medicine.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A narrative review on the use of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: A Giant Step in Personalized Medicine?Journal of personalized 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in cardiovascular medicine presents a transformative opportunity to enhance diagnostic accuracy and improve patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluates the impact of AI on cardiovascular diagnostics with a focus on its ability to surpass traditional methods in accuracy, efficiency, and predictive capabilities. Machine learning and deep learning have demonstrated significant advancements in areas such as echocardiography, electrocardiography, computed tomography angiography, and predictive analytics. AI algorithms have demonstrated superior performance in identifying subtle patterns and anomalies. Additionally, AI has shown promise in predictive analytics, forecasting disease progression and tailoring treatment plans, thereby improving patient outcomes. Despite these advancements, significant gaps remain in our understanding of AI's full impact on cardiovascular medicine. Challenges such as the generalizability of AI models, ethical considerations, data privacy, issues related to data quality, clear guidelines on AI implementation in clinical practice and potential biases in AI algorithms warrant further investigation. Key findings indicate that AI systems consistently achieve higher diagnostic accuracy, reduce inter-observer variability, and facilitate earlier detection of cardiovascular conditions, leading to improved patient outcomes. In conclusion, AI holds substantial promise for improving diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in cardiovascular medicine. This review provides valuable insights into the benefits and limitations of AI, guiding future research and clinical practice to ensure responsible and effective integration of AI technologies in cardiovascular health care.
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.