Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42203170›Full record

ReviewIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal

AI in the EP lab - mapping, imaging, and signal interpretation.

Abhinav B Anand, Ketan Rajawat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Abhinav B AnandDepartment of Cardiology, Narayana Health, Mysuru, India. Electronic address: docabhinavheart@gmail.com.
Ketan RajawatDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, 208016, India. Electronic address: ketan@iitk.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the use of computational models to learn from electrical, anatomical and imaging data to assist or automate interpretation, prediction and decision making in arrhythmia diagnosis and treatment. This includes interpretation of signals, integration of multimodal data to support procedural decisions and to predict outcomes. When personalized to individual patients, these mechanistic approaches give rise to cardiac digital twins capable to procedural planning and hypothesis testing. In the electrophysiology (EP) lab, AI aims to reduce inter-observer variability, improve identification of the arrhythmogenic substrate by combining information from multimodality imaging and promises to streamline mapping and ablation workflows. Integration of AI with cardiac CT and cardiac MRI allows for automated segmentation, wall thickness and scar characterization and identification of conducting channels for ventricular tachycardia. Similarly, AI guided approaches for spatiotemporal dispersion and focal drivers in atrial fibrillation have demonstrated improved procedural consistency and promising clinical outcomes. This review synthesizes the current evidence on use of AI in the EP lab particularly preprocedural planning, intra procedural imaging and use of digital twins. We highlight practical workflows, representative clinical use cases and key limitations of AI.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceAtrial fibrillationElectrophysiologyMachine learningVentricular tachycardia

Identifiers

PMID42203170
PMCPMC13541568

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.