ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Accurately assessing congenital heart disease using artificial intelligence.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fetal echocardiography combined with serum biomarkers for early diagnosis of congenital heart disease and birth defect risk prediction.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- A Paradigm Shift in Congenital Heart Disease: A Scientometric Portrait of the Rise of Computational Intelligence.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Review
- Challenges Faced by Healthcare Professionals in Screening Newborns for Congenital Heart Defects in Pakistan.International journal of neonatal screening · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital heart disease (CHD) remains a significant global health challenge, particularly contributing to newborn mortality, with the highest rates observed in middle- and low-income countries due to limited healthcare resources. Machine learning (ML) presents a promising solution by developing predictive models that more accurately assess the risk of mortality associated with CHD. These ML-based models can help healthcare professionals identify high-risk infants and ensure timely and appropriate care. In addition, ML algorithms excel at detecting and analyzing complex patterns that can be overlooked by human clinicians, thereby enhancing diagnostic accuracy. Despite notable advancements, ongoing research continues to explore the full potential of ML in the identification of CHD. The proposed article provides a comprehensive analysis of the ML methods for the diagnosis of CHD in the last eight years. The study also describes different data sets available for CHD research, discussing their characteristics, collection methods, and relevance to ML applications. In addition, the article also evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of existing algorithms, offering a critical review of their performance and limitations. Finally, the article proposes several promising directions for future research, with the aim of further improving the efficacy of ML in the diagnosis and treatment of CHD.
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.