Evidence mapPaperPMID 42534745Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026

Clinical cognition in the age of cardiovascular AI.

Jose E Krieger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. 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

1 author.

Jose E KriegerInstituto do Coração (InCor), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly entering cardiovascular medicine through electrocardiography, imaging, wearable monitoring, risk prediction, heart failure management, and clinical decision support. Its value, however, should not be judged only by technical accuracy, speed, or computational sophistication. Cardiovascular care requires clinicians and teams to convert multimodal, longitudinal, incomplete, and context-dependent information into action under uncertainty. This Perspective argues that AI should be understood not as a replacement for clinical intuition, but as a cognitive instrument that reshapes how cardiovascular teams perceive, prioritize, reason, decide, communicate, and learn. Building on dual-process theories of clinical reasoning, the manuscript proposes that AI can support both rapid pattern recognition (System 1) and slower analytic reasoning (System 2), while also creating new vulnerabilities when automation bias, alert fatigue, poor explainability, dataset shift, hidden inequity, or responsibility drift distort judgment. The central standard should therefore move from algorithm-centered performance to accountable intelligence: AI that is accurate, explainable, locally validated, equitable, auditable, monitored across its lifecycle, and embedded within explicit clinical governance.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceautomation biascardiovascular medicineclinical cognitiondecision supportexplainable AIhealth equityimplementation science

Identifiers

PMID42534745
PMCPMC13422146

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.