Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36713089›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2021

Artificial intelligence in cardiology: the debate continues.

Folkert W Asselbergs, Alan G Fraser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Diagnostic AI and Cardiac Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  10. The 1-year anniversary of theEuropean heart journal. Digital health · 2021
    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

2 authors.

Folkert W AsselbergsDivision Heart and Lungs, Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1692-8669
Alan G FraserSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7083-6995

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1955, when John McCarthy and his colleagues proposed their first study of artificial intelligence, they suggested that 'every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it'. Whether that might ever be possible would depend on how we define intelligence, but what is indisputable is that new methods are needed to analyse and interpret the copious information provided by digital medical images, genomic databases, and biobanks. Technological advances have enabled applications of artificial intelligence (AI) including machine learning (ML) to be implemented into clinical practice, and their related scientific literature is exploding. Advocates argue enthusiastically that AI will transform many aspects of clinical cardiovascular medicine, while sceptics stress the importance of caution and the need for more evidence. This report summarizes the main opposing arguments that were presented in a debate at the 2021 Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Artificial intelligence is an advanced analytical technique that should be considered when conventional statistical methods are insufficient, but testing a hypothesis or solving a clinical problem-not finding another application for AI-remains the most important objective. Artificial intelligence and ML methods should be transparent and interpretable, if they are to be approved by regulators and trusted to provide support for clinical decisions. Physicians need to understand AI methods and collaborate with engineers. Few applications have yet been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcomes, so investment in research is essential.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceEvidence-based practiceMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID36713089
PMCPMC9708032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.