ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Evaluating artificial intelligence-enabled medical tests in cardiology: Best practice.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 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.
- Recent highlights from theInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Risk stratification of patients with syncope in the emergency department using ECG based artificial intelligence models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning methods are increasingly used in cardiovascular research. In order to highlight opportunities and challenges of the evaluation of studies applying machine learning, we use examples from cardiac electrophysiology, a field characterized by large and often imbalanced amounts of data. We provide recommendations and guidance on evaluating and presenting supervised machine learning studies. We recommend proper cohort selection, keeping training and testing data strictly separate, and comparing results to a reference model without machine learning as basic principles to ensure the quality of studies using machine learning methods. We furthermore recommend specific metrics and plots when reporting on machine learning including on models for multi-channel time series or images. This Best Practice paper represents a possible blueprint to help evaluate machine learning-based medical tests in cardiac electrophysiology and beyond.
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.