ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2025
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: An Updated Review on Current Understanding and Future Research.
Review in Current cardiology reviews, 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.
- Deep Learning and Cardiovascular Diseases: An Updated Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Postoperative complications of coronary artery bypass grafting: a narrative review on pathophysiology, management strategies, and the emerging role of artificial intelligence.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Thoracic Surgery: Transforming Diagnostics, Treatment, and Patient Outcomes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) Continues to be the leading cause of mortality worldwide, underscoring the critical need for effective prevention and management strategies. The ability to predict cardiovascular risk accurately and cost-effectively is central to improving patient outcomes and reducing the global burden of CVD. While useful, traditional tools used for risk assessment are often limited in their scope and fail to adequately account for atypical presentations and complex patient profiles. These limitations highlight the necessity for more advanced approaches, particularly integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into cardiovascular risk prediction. Our review explores the transformative role of AI in enhancing the accuracy, efficiency, and accessibility of cardiovascular risk prediction models. The implementation of AI-driven risk assessment tools has shown promising results, not only in improving CVD mortality rates but also in enhancing quality of life (QOL) markers and reducing healthcare costs. Machine learning (ML) algorithms predicted 2-year survival rates after MI with improved accuracy compared to traditional models. Deep learning (DL) forecasted hypertension risk with a 91.7% accuracy based on electronic health records. Furthermore, AI-driven ECG (Electrocardiography) analysis has demonstrated high precision in identifying left ventricular systolic dysfunction, even with noisy single-lead data from wearable devices. These tools enable more personalized treatment strategies, foster greater patient engagement, and support informed decision-making by healthcare providers. Unfortunately, the widespread adoption of AI in CVD risk assessment remains a challenge, largely due to a lack of education and acceptance among healthcare professionals. To overcome these barriers, it is crucial to promote broader education on the benefits and applications of AI in cardiovascular risk prediction. By fostering a greater understanding and acceptance of these technologies, we can accelerate their integration into clinical practice, ultimately aiming to mitigate the global impact of CVD.
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.