Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37861853›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2024

Artificial intelligence models in prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review.

Wojciech Nazar, Stanisław Szymanowicz, Krzysztof Nazar, Damian Kaufmann, Elżbieta Wabich, Rüdiger Braun-Dullaeus, Ludmiła Daniłowicz-Szymanowicz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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.

Wojciech NazarFaculty of Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie 3a, 80-210, Gdańsk, Poland.
Stanisław SzymanowiczVisual Geometry Group, University of Oxford, Banbury Road 25, OX2 6NN Oxford, UK.
Krzysztof NazarFaculty of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics, Gdańsk University of Technology, Gabriela Narutowicza 11/12, 80-233, Gdańsk, Poland.
Damian KaufmannDepartment of Cardiology and Electrotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-213, Gdańsk, Poland.
Elżbieta WabichDepartment of Cardiology and Electrotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-213, Gdańsk, Poland.
Rüdiger Braun-DullaeusDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Street 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Ludmiła Daniłowicz-SzymanowiczDepartment of Cardiology and Electrotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Gdańsk, Smoluchowskiego 17, 80-213, Gdańsk, Poland. ludwik@gumed.edu.pl.ORCID 0000-0002-2269-1880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of the presented review is to summarize the literature data on the accuracy and clinical applicability of artificial intelligence (AI) models as a valuable alternative to the current guidelines in predicting cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response and phenotyping of patients eligible for CRT implantation. This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. After a search of Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, 675 records were identified. Twenty supervised (prediction of CRT response) and 9 unsupervised (clustering and phenotyping) AI models were analyzed qualitatively (22 studies, 14,258 patients). Fifty-five percent of AI models were based on retrospective studies. Unsupervised AI models were able to identify clusters of patients with significantly different rates of primary outcome events (death, heart failure event). In comparison to the guideline-based CRT response prediction accuracy of 70%, supervised AI models trained on cohorts with > 100 patients achieved up to 85% accuracy and an AUC of 0.86 in their prediction of response to CRT for echocardiographic and clinical outcomes, respectively. AI models seem to be an accurate and clinically applicable tool in phenotyping of patients eligible for CRT implantation and predicting potential responders. In the future, AI may help to increase CRT response rates to over 80% and improve clinical decision-making and prognosis of the patients, including reduction of mortality rates. However, these findings must be validated in randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCardiac Resynchronization TherapyHeart FailureHumansTreatment OutcomeArtificial intelligenceCardiac resynchronization therapyHeart failureMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37861853
PMCPMC10904439

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.