ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Clinical cognition in the age of cardiovascular AI.
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.