ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2025
Machine learning electrocardiography model to differentiate takotsubo syndrome from myocardial infarction.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 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.
- Diagnostic Challenges in Takotsubo Syndrome: Bridging Mimics, Mechanisms, and Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Machine learning (ML) algorithms applied to the electrocardiography (ECG) have been successful in several cardiac diagnoses, however, rarely been used for the diagnostics of takotsubo syndrome (TTS). Our aim was to develop ML-based ECG-models to differentiate TTS from patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Methods and results: Cross-sectional study in Stockholm. A neural network with UNet architecture was trained and validated on 507 TTS cases and 14 978 controls with suspected and verified MI, identified from the Swedish coronary angiography and angioplasty register. Cross-validation was performed. The models were compared with cardiologists using previously proposed ECG criteria. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) for discriminating TTS from patients with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation MI ROC AUC 0.88 (cross-validation: 0.85-0.92) and 0.86 (cross-validation: 0.82-0.91), respectively. ROC AUC for discriminating TTS from verified MI [non-ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI) and ST-elevation MI (STEMI)] was 0.87 (cross-validation: 0.83-0.91) with sensitivity (0.75) and specificity (0.83) with low positive predictive value (PPV) and high negative predictive value (NPV). Results for suspected MI was ROC AUC 0.85 (cross validation: 0.81-0.91) with sensitivity (0.75) and specificity (0.79) with low PPV (0.11) and high NPV (0.99). The committee of two cardiologists using a combination of ECG criteria achieved an ROC AUC of 0.71. Conclusion: Machine learning models could discriminate TTS from MI (NSTEMI and STEMI) and suspected MI with high sensitivity and NPV, outperforming cardiologists using conventional criteria. The models require further refinement to increase PPV, precision-recall and external validation, but it holds promise for TTS screening aiding the clinician in ruling out TTS.
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.