Key result
AI-based 12-lead ECG interpretation detected STEMI with a pooled sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.97), specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.98), and AUC of 0.98 against a clinical reference standard.
Why the study?
Artificial intelligence may improve electrocardiographic detection of STEMI, but existing studies address distinct diagnostic questions.
Does artificial intelligence-based 12-lead ECG interpretation improve the diagnostic accuracy for detecting ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared to a clinical reference standard and clinician interpretation?
Meta-Analysis (n=539,876)
Does artificial intelligence-based 12-lead ECG interpretation improve the diagnostic accuracy for detecting ST-elevation myocardial infarction compared to a clinical reference standard and clinician interpretation?
AI-based 12-lead ECG interpretation demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.98) and higher sensitivity than clinicians (0.91 vs 0.78) at equal specificity (0.91) for detecting STEMI against a clinical reference standard.
Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve electrocardiographic detection of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but available studies address distinct diagnostic questions. We systematically reviewed studies evaluating AI-based STEMI detection from 12-lead electrocardiograms and separately synthesized AI performance against a clinical reference standard, AI and clinician performance against a clinical reference, and AI agreement with physician electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2010 through March 10, 2025. Bivariate random-effects models generated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC). Twenty-six studies comprising 539,876 ECGs were included. In 20 studies comparing AI with a clinical reference standard, pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.97), specificity 0.95 (0.90-0.98), AUC 0.98 (0.97-0.99), positive likelihood ratio 19.2 (9.3-39.5), and negative likelihood ratio 0.05 (0.03-0.10). In 8 studies reporting both AI and clinician performance against a clinical reference, separate syntheses showed sensitivity of 0.91 (0.86-0.94) for AI versus 0.78 (0.69-0.85) for clinicians, specificity of 0.91 (0.82-0.96) for both, and AUCs of 0.95 and 0.90, respectively. In 7 studies using physician ECG interpretation as the comparator, AI sensitivity was 0.85 (0.70-0.94), specificity 0.99 (0.96-1.00), and AUC 0.98 (0.96-0.99). Sensitivity analyses excluding case-control designs, influential studies, and restricting analyses to deep-learning models or raw-waveform ECGs produced similar findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abbas et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=539,876). Artificial intelligence (AI)-based 12-lead ECG interpretation vs. Clinical reference standard and clinician/physician ECG interpretation was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy for STEMI detection (pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC against a clinical reference standard) (AUC 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99). AI-based 12-lead ECG interpretation detected STEMI with a pooled sensitivity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.97), specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.98), and AUC of 0.98 against a clinical reference standard.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: