ArticleNature medicine2025
Artificial intelligence for direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory electrocardiography.
Article in Nature medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- CODE-II: a large-scale dataset for artificial intelligence in ECG analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Assessment of Heart Rate Variability as an Instrument to Understand the Connection Between Psychologic and Psychiatric Conditions and the Heart.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Materials and System Design for Self-Decision Bioelectronic Systems.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- Self-powered in-stent restenosis diagnosis via magnetoelastic stents.Nature cardiovascular research · 2026Article
- Interpretable multimodal zero shot ECG diagnosis via structured clinical knowledge alignment.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- The Irreversible March of Time: Ischemic Delay and Impact on Outcomes in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Active Monitoring for AtriaL FIbrillation (AMALFI): Rationale, protocol, and pilot for a pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial of remote screening for asymptomatic atrial fibrillation.American heart journal · 2025Article
- Precision Medicine for Electrocardiogram Interpretation: Clinical Relevance, Challenges, and Advances.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Observational
- What's the best way to leverage 31 million days of ECG data?NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Review
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The hope and the hype of artificial intelligence for syncope management.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- The inclusion of a Holter Reading software in the clinical practice of cardiology shows a multi-level high positive impact in healthcare: a real-world implementation study in three Spanish hospitals.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Literature Review Discussing Diagnostic Challenges of Prinzmetal or Vasospastic Angina.Cureus · 2025Review
- Wearable AI to enhance patient safety and clinical decision-making.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Prioritizing human-AI collaboration in healthcare: the TRIAD framework for trustworthy governance, real-world, and integrated adaptive deployment.Military Medical Research · 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
57 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developments in ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) technology have led to vast amounts of ECG data that currently need to be interpreted by human technicians. Here we tested an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for direct-to-physician reporting of ambulatory ECGs. Beat-by-beat annotation of 14,606 individual ambulatory ECG recordings (mean duration = 14 ± 10 days) was performed by certified ECG technicians (n = 167) and an ensemble AI model, called DeepRhythmAI. To compare the performance of the AI model and the technicians, a random sample of 5,235 rhythm events identified by the AI model or by technicians, of which 2,236 events were identified as critical arrhythmias, was selected for annotation by one of 17 cardiologist consensus panels. The mean sensitivity of the AI model for the identification of critical arrhythmias was 98.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 97.7-99.4), as compared to 80.3% (95% CI = 77.3-83.3%) for the technicians. False-negative findings were observed in 3.2/1,000 patients for the AI model versus 44.3/1,000 patients for the technicians. Accordingly, the relative risk of a missed diagnosis was 14.1 (95% CI = 10.4-19.0) times higher for the technicians. However, a higher false-positive event rate was observed for the AI model (12 (interquartile range (IQR) = 6-74)/1,000 patient days) as compared to the technicians (5 (IQR = 2-153)/1,000 patient days). We conclude that the DeepRhythmAI model has excellent negative predictive value for critical arrhythmias, substantially reducing false-negative findings, but at a modest cost of increased false-positive findings. AI-only analysis to facilitate direct-to-physician reporting could potentially reduce costs and improve access to care and outcomes in patients who need ambulatory ECG monitoring.
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.