ReviewAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2025
Artificial intelligence for Brugada syndrome diagnosis and gene variants interpretation.
Review in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrophysiological Modeling and Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Cardiac Sodium Channels in Brugada Syndrome.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- Brugada syndrome risk scores: what we've learned and what's next.Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brugada Syndrome (BrS) is a hereditary cardiac condition associated with an elevated risk of lethal arrhythmias, making precise and prompt diagnosis vital to prevent life-threatening outcomes. The diagnosis of BrS is challenging due to the requirement of invasive drug challenge tests, limited human visual capacity to detect subtle electrocardiogram (ECG) patterns, and the transient nature of the disease. Artificial intelligence (AI) can detect almost all patterns of BrS in ECG, some of which are even beyond the capability of expert eyes. AI is subcategorized into several models, with deep learning being considered the most beneficial, boasting its highest accuracy among the other models. With the capability to discriminate subtle data and analyze extensive datasets, AI has achieved higher accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared to trained cardiologists. Meanwhile, AI proficiency in managing complex data enables us to discover unclassified genetic variants. AI can also analyze data extracted from induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes to distinguish BrS from other inherited cardiac arrhythmias. The aim of this study is to present a synopsis of the evolution of various algorithms of artificial intelligence utilized in the diagnosis of BrS and compare their diagnostic abilities to trained cardiologists. In addition, the application of AI for classification of BrS gene variants is also briefly discussed.
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.