ArticleJournal of electrocardiology
Clinical usability of deep learning-based saliency maps for occlusion myocardial infarction identification from the prehospital 12-Lead electrocardiogram.
Article in Journal of electrocardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- From signal to bedside: the missing link between ECG-AI explainability and clinical trust.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in prehospital assessment of acute coronary syndrome: a scoping review.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Signal or noise? Evaluating commonly used attribution methods for explaining deep neural networks in electrocardiogram classification.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-enhanced Electrocardiography for Heart Failure Screening and Risk Stratification.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Multimodal deep learning for acute myocardial infarction detection from 12-lead electrocardiogram: a multi-centre study with cross-hospital validation.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- ECG-SMART-NET: A Deep Learning Architecture for Precise ECG Diagnosis of Occlusion Myocardial Infarction.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025Article
- Machine Learning and Arrhythmia: Advances in Atrial Fibrillation Detection and Management.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDeep learning (DL) models offer improved performance in electrocardiogram (ECG)-based classification over rule-based methods. However, for widespread adoption by clinicians, explainability methods, like saliency maps, are essential.
methodsOn a subset of 100 ECGs from patients with chest pain, we generated saliency maps using a previously validated convolutional neural network for occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI) classification. Three clinicians reviewed ECG-saliency map dyads, first assessing the likelihood of OMI from standard ECGs and then evaluating clinical relevance and helpfulness of the saliency maps, as well as their confidence in the model's predictions. Questions were answered on a Likert scale ranging from +3 (most useful/relevant) to -3 (least useful/relevant).
resultsThe adjudicated accuracy of the three clinicians matched the DL model when considering area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) and F1 score (AUC 0.855 vs. 0.872, F1 score = 0.789 vs. 0.747). On average, clinicians found saliency maps slightly clinically relevant (0.96 ± 0.92) and slightly helpful (0.66 ± 0.98) in identifying or ruling out OMI but had higher confidence in the model's predictions (1.71 ± 0.56). Clinicians noted that leads I and aVL were often emphasized, even when obvious ST changes were present in other leads.
conclusionIn this clinical usability study, clinicians deemed saliency maps somewhat helpful in enhancing explainability of DL-based ECG models. The spatial convolutional layers across the 12 leads in these models appear to contribute to the discrepancy between ECG segments considered most relevant by clinicians and segments that drove DL model predictions.
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.