Why the study?
The study was conducted to review and highlight recent advances in diagnostic uses of artificial intelligence for cardiac diseases, emphasizing expected benefits to patients and healthcare specialists.
What is the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence and machine learning in cardiac diseases?
What is the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence and machine learning in cardiac diseases?
AI-assisted diagnosis in cardiology shows promise across various cardiac diseases and is expected to increasingly serve as an adjunctive tool to clinical judgment.
AI advances may aid cardiac diagnostics; leaves open need for prospective validation before clinical use.
(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to review and highlight recent advances in diagnostic uses of artificial intelligence (AI) for cardiac diseases, in order to emphasize expected benefits to both patients and healthcare specialists; (2) Methods: We focused on four key search terms (Cardiac Disease, diagnosis, artificial intelligence, machine learning) across three different databases (Pubmed, European Heart Journal, Science Direct) between 2017-2022 in order to reach relatively more recent developments in the field. Our review was structured in order to clearly differentiate publications according to the disease they aim to diagnose (coronary artery disease, electrophysiological and structural heart diseases); (3) Results: Each study had different levels of success, where declared sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, area under curve and F1 scores were reported for every article reviewed; (4) Conclusions: the number and quality of AI-assisted cardiac disease diagnosis publications will continue to increase through each year. We believe AI-based diagnosis should only be viewed as an additional tool assisting doctors' own judgement, where the end goal is to provide better quality of healthcare and to make getting medical help more affordable and more accessible, for everyone, everywhere.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ozsahin et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: