Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34926630›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2021

Medicine-Based Evidence in Congenital Heart Disease: How Artificial Intelligence Can Guide Treatment Decisions for Individual Patients.

Jef Van den Eynde, Cedric Manlhiot, Alexander Van De Bruaene, Gerhard-Paul Diller, Alejandro F Frangi, Werner Budts, Shelby Kutty

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Role of artificial intelligence in congenital heart disease.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Big Data in Cardiology: State-of-Art and Future Prospects.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Jef Van den EyndeDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven and Congenital and Structural Cardiology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Cedric ManlhiotBlalock-Taussig-Thomas Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, The Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Alexander Van De BruaeneDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven and Congenital and Structural Cardiology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Gerhard-Paul DillerDepartment of Cardiology III-Adult Congenital and Valvular Heart Disease, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Alejandro F FrangiDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven and Congenital and Structural Cardiology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Werner BudtsDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven and Congenital and Structural Cardiology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Shelby KuttyBlalock-Taussig-Thomas Pediatric and Congenital Heart Center, The Johns Hopkins Hospital and School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BEJohns Hopkins Hospital · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity Hospital Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Built on the foundation of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is at its best when optimizing outcomes for homogeneous cohorts of patients like those participating in an RCT. Its weakness is a failure to resolve a clinical quandary: patients appear for care individually, each may differ in important ways from an RCT cohort, and the physician will wonder each time if following EBM will provide best guidance for this unique patient. In an effort to overcome this weakness, and promote higher quality care through a more personalized approach, a new framework has been proposed: Medicine-Based Evidence (MBE). In this approach, big data and deep learning techniques are embraced to interrogate treatment responses among patients in real-world clinical practice. Such statistical models are then integrated with mechanistic disease models to construct a "digital twin," which serves as the real-time digital counterpart of a patient. MBE is thereby capable of dynamically modeling the effects of various treatment decisions in the context of an individual's specific characteristics. In this article, we discuss how MBE could benefit patients with congenital heart disease, a field where RCTs are difficult to conduct and often fail to provide definitive solutions because of a small number of subjects, their clinical complexity, and heterogeneity. We will also highlight the challenges that must be addressed before MBE can be embraced in clinical practice and its full potential can be realized.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecongenital heart diseasedeep learningevidence-based medicinepersonalized medicinerandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID34926630
PMCPMC8674499
OpenAlexW3217604492

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.