ArticleInternational journal of arrhythmia2022
Machine learning techniques for arrhythmic risk stratification: a review of the literature.
Article in International journal of arrhythmia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of artificial intelligence in predicting in-hospital cardiac and respiratory arrest in an acute care environment-implications for clinical practice.Frontiers in medical technology · 2025Pooled it
- Integrating AI-Driven Diagnostics in Arrhythmia Care to Enhance Patient Outcomes: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Prioritizing Discovery and Advancements in Arrhythmia Therapies: NIH/NHLBI Workshop.JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2026Review
- The Use of DeepQSAR Models for the Discovery of Peptides With Enhanced Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Potential.Molecular informatics · 2026Article
- Non-genetic factors determine deep learning identified ECG differences between black and white healthy subjects.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical significance, challenges and limitations in using artificial intelligence for electrocardiography-based diagnosis.International journal of arrhythmia · 2022Review
- Prediction of new-onset atrial fibrillation in sepsis patients by machine learning: A systematic review.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) are significant adverse events that affect the morbidity and mortality of both the general population and patients with predisposing cardiovascular risk factors. Currently, conventional disease-specific scores are used for risk stratification purposes. However, these risk scores have several limitations, including variations among validation cohorts, the inclusion of a limited number of predictors while omitting important variables, as well as hidden relationships between predictors. Machine learning (ML) techniques are based on algorithms that describe intervariable relationships. Recent studies have implemented ML techniques to construct models for the prediction of fatal VAs. However, the application of ML study findings is limited by the absence of established frameworks for its implementation, in addition to clinicians' unfamiliarity with ML techniques. This review, therefore, aims to provide an accessible and easy-to-understand summary of the existing evidence about the use of ML techniques in the prediction of VAs. Our findings suggest that ML algorithms improve arrhythmic prediction performance in different clinical settings. However, it should be emphasized that prospective studies comparing ML algorithms to conventional risk models are needed while a regulatory framework is required prior to their implementation in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.