ArticleCardiovascular digital health journal2024
Artificial intelligence-based screening for cardiomyopathy in an obstetric population: A pilot study.
Article in Cardiovascular digital health journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence guided screening for cardiomyopathies in an obstetric population: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial.Nature medicine · 2024Trial
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Electrocardiography for the Detection of Heart Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography from scientific research to clinical application.EMBO molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Tools for Preconception Cardiomyopathy Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age.Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
- A Resting ECG Screening Protocol Improved with Artificial Intelligence for the Early Detection of Cardiovascular Risk in Athletes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiomyopathy is a leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality and the number one cause of death in the late postpartum period. Delay in diagnosis is associated with severe adverse outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) and AI-enabled digital stethoscope to detect left ventricular systolic dysfunction in an obstetric population. Methods: We conducted a single-arm prospective study of pregnant and postpartum women enrolled at 3 sites between October 28, 2021, and October 27, 2022. Study participants completed a standard 12-lead ECG, digital stethoscope ECG and phonocardiogram recordings, and a transthoracic echocardiogram within 24 hours. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC). Results: One hundred women were included in the final analysis. The median age was 31 years (Q1: 27, Q3: 34). Thirty-eight percent identified as non-Hispanic White, 32% as non-Hispanic Black, and 21% as Hispanic. Five percent and 6% had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <45% and <50%, respectively. The AI-ECG model had near-perfect classification performance (AUC: 1.0, 100% sensitivity; 99%-100% specificity) for detection of cardiomyopathy at both LVEF categories. The AI-enabled digital stethoscope had an AUC of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.00), for detection of LVEF <45% and <50%, respectively, with 100% sensitivity and 90% specificity. Conclusion: We demonstrate an AI-ECG and AI-enabled digital stethoscope were effective for detecting cardiac dysfunction in an obstetric population. Larger studies, including an evaluation of the impact of screening on clinical outcomes, are essential next steps.
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.