ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative evaluation of deep learning models for cardiovascular disease diagnosis and classification.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide, highlighting the need for accurate and computationally efficient diagnostic tools. Electrocardiography (ECG) is widely used for the diagnosis of CVD and is a noninvasive, cost-effective method. However, manual interpretation requires substantial time and can lead to human error. In this study, we propose and systematically compare low-complexity Artificial Intelligence (AI)–driven Deep Learning (DL) models for multi-class ECG-based CVD diagnosis and classification. Using the publicly available PTB Diagnostic ECG (PTB-ECG) dataset, which comprises multiple CVD categories, we evaluate CNN, LSTM, MLP, CNN-MLP, and ConvLSTM architectures, focusing on balancing diagnostic performance and computational complexity. Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT)–based feature extraction and data-level imbalance handling are employed to enhance efficiency and robustness. Experimental results show that the LSTM model achieves the best overall performance, with an accuracy of 99.98%, an F1 score of 98%, and a precision of 100%, while maintaining low computational complexity, measured in Real Multiplications Per Symbol (RMpS). These findings demonstrate that high diagnostic accuracy can be achieved without high computational complexity, supporting the feasibility of real-time and resource-constrained clinical deployment.
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.