SynthesisThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Machine learning for myocarditis diagnosis using cardiovascular magnetic resonance: a systematic review, diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis, and comparison with human physicians.
Synthesis in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multimodality Imaging in Myocarditis: Integrating Etiology, Diagnosis, and Risk Stratification.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocarditis is an inflammation of heart tissue. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has emerged as an important non-invasive imaging tool for diagnosing myocarditis, however, interpretation remains a challenge for novice physicians. Advancements in machine learning (ML) models have further improved diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating good performance. Our study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ML in identifying myocarditis using CMR. A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus to identify studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of ML in the detection of myocarditis using CMR. The included studies evaluated both image-based and report-based assessments using various ML models. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated using a Random-Effects model (R software). We found a total of 141 ML model results from a total of 12 studies, which were included in the systematic review. The best models achieved 0.93 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.88-0.96) sensitivity and 0.95 (95% CI 0.89-0.97) specificity. Pooled area under the curve was 0.97 (95% CI 0.93-0.98). Comparisons with human physicians showed comparable results for diagnostic accuracy of myocarditis. Quality assessment concerns and heterogeneity were present. CMR augmented using ML models with advanced algorithms can provide high diagnostic accuracy for myocarditis, even surpassing novice CMR radiologists. However, high heterogeneity, quality assessment concerns, and lack of information on cost-effectiveness may limit the clinical implementation of ML. Future investigations should explore cost-effectiveness and minimize biases in their methodologies.
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.