Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37665551›Full record

SynthesisCJEM2023

Machine learning for the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome using a 12-lead ECG: a systematic review.

Max Zworth, Hashim Kareemi, Suzanne Boroumand, Lindsey Sikora, Ian Stiell, Krishan Yadav

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in CJEM, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Max ZworthDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. mzworth@toh.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-9120-998X
Hashim KareemiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Suzanne BoroumandDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lindsey SikoraHealth Sciences Library, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ian StiellDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Krishan YadavDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrompt diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) using a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is a critical task for emergency physicians. While computerized algorithms for ECG interpretation are limited in their accuracy, machine learning (ML) models have shown promise in several areas of clinical medicine. We performed a systematic review to compare the performance of ML-based ECG analysis to clinician or non-ML computerized ECG interpretation in the diagnosis of ACS for emergency department (ED) or prehospital patients.

methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases from inception to May 18, 2022. We included studies that compared ML algorithms to either clinicians or non-ML based software in their ability to diagnose ACS using only a 12-lead ECG, in adult patients experiencing chest pain or symptoms concerning for ACS in the ED or prehospital setting. We used QUADAS-2 for risk of bias assessment. Prospero registration CRD42021264765.

resultsOur search yielded 1062 abstracts. 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Five model types were tested, including neural networks, random forest, and gradient boosting. In five studies with complete performance data, ML models were more sensitive but less specific (sensitivity range 0.59-0.98, specificity range 0.44-0.95) than clinicians (sensitivity range 0.22-0.93, specificity range 0.63-0.98) in diagnosing ACS. In four studies that reported it, ML models had better discrimination (area under ROC curve range 0.79-0.98) than clinicians (area under ROC curve 0.67-0.78). Heterogeneity in both methodology and reporting methods precluded a meta-analysis. Several studies had high risk of bias due to patient selection, lack of external validation, and unreliable reference standards for ACS diagnosis.

conclusionsML models have overall higher discrimination and sensitivity but lower specificity than clinicians and non-ML software in ECG interpretation for the diagnosis of ACS. ML-based ECG interpretation could potentially serve a role as a "safety net", alerting emergency care providers to a missed acute MI when it has not been diagnosed. More rigorous primary research is needed to definitively demonstrate the ability of ML to outperform clinicians at ECG interpretation.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeEmergency Medical ServicesMyocardial InfarctionAdultElectrocardiographyHumansMachine LearningAcute coronary syndromeArtificial intelligenceECGMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37665551
OpenAlexW4386407034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.