ArticleJACC. Advances2024
Prospective Human Validation of Artificial Intelligence Interventions in Cardiology: A Scoping Review.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PRIME 2.0: Proposed Requirements for Cardiovascular Imaging-Related Multimodal-AI Evaluation: An Updated Checklist.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2026Guideline
- Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Editorial for the Special Issue "Diabetes, Hypertension, and Cardiovascular Diseases: New Insights, Risk Factors, and Drug Therapies".Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence adoption in French cardiovascular care: a multiprofessional survey of barriers and facilitators.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Digital Technology in Cardiovascular Imaging: A Narrative Review.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in cardiology: a narrative review with focus on patient outcomes.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- From Echocardiography to CT/MRI: Lessons for AI Implementation in Cardiovascular Imaging in LMICs-A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Women's Cardiovascular Disease Care.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography to Optimize the Diagnostic Yield of Invasive Angiography for Low-Risk Patients Screened With Artificial Intelligence: Protocol for the CarDIA-AI Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- A Clinical Evaluation of Cardiovascular Emergencies: A Comparison of Responses from ChatGPT, Emergency Physicians, and Cardiologists.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- AI in Cardiology: Improving Outcomes for All.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in enhancing cardiovascular care, its integration into clinical practice is limited by a lack of evidence on its effectiveness with respect to human experts or gold standard practices in real-world settings. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify AI interventions in cardiology that have been prospectively validated against human expert benchmarks or gold standard practices, assessing their effectiveness, and identifying future research areas. Methods: We systematically reviewed Scopus and MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed publications that involved prospective human validation of AI-based interventions in cardiology from January 2015 to December 2023. Results: Of 2,351 initial records, 64 studies were included. Among these studies, 59 (92.2%) were published after 2020. A total of 11 (17.2%) randomized controlled trials were published. AI interventions in 44 articles (68.75%) reported definite clinical or operational improvements over human experts. These interventions were mostly used in imaging (n = 14, 21.9%), ejection fraction (n = 10, 15.6%), arrhythmia (n = 9, 14.1%), and coronary artery disease (n = 12, 18.8%) application areas. Convolutional neural networks were the most common predictive model (n = 44, 69%), and images were the most used data type (n = 38, 54.3%). Only 22 (34.4%) studies made their models or data accessible. Conclusions: This review identifies the potential of AI in cardiology, with models often performing equally well as human counterparts for specific and clearly scoped tasks suitable for such models. Nonetheless, the limited number of randomized controlled trials emphasizes the need for continued validation, especially in real-world settings that closely examine joint human AI decision-making.
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.