ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Machine Learning in the Management of Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. 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.
- Circulating microRNAs in Atrial Fibrillation: Clinical Significance and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Explainable machine learning for risk prediction of acute cardiac tamponade during atrial fibrillation ablation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Targeting the Substrate: Mechanism-Based Ablation Strategies for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough catheter ablation (CA) is currently the most effective clinical treatment for atrial fibrillation, its variable therapeutic effects among different patients present numerous problems. Machine learning (ML) shows promising potential in optimizing the management and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation CA (AFCA).
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to evaluate the current scientific evidence on the application of ML for managing patients undergoing AFCA, compare the performance of various models across specific clinical tasks within AFCA, and summarize the strengths and limitations of ML in this field.
methodsAdhering to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, relevant studies published up to October 7, 2023, were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect. The final included studies were confirmed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and manual review. The PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool) and QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) methodological quality assessment tools were used to review the included studies, and narrative data synthesis was performed on the modeled results provided by these studies.
resultsThe analysis of 23 included studies showcased the contributions of ML in identifying potential ablation targets, improving ablation strategies, and predicting patient prognosis. The patient data used in these studies comprised demographics, clinical characteristics, various types of imaging (9/23, 39%), and electrophysiological signals (7/23, 30%). In terms of model type, deep learning, represented by convolutional neural networks, was most frequently applied (14/23, 61%). Compared with traditional clinical scoring models or human clinicians, the model performance reported in the included studies was generally satisfactory, but most models (14/23, 61%) showed a high risk of bias due to lack of external validation.
conclusionsOur evidence-based findings suggest that ML is a promising tool for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of managing patients undergoing AFCA. While guiding data preparation and model selection for future studies, this review highlights the need to address prevalent limitations, including lack of external validation, and to further explore model generalization and interpretability.
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.