ReviewJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025
The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Models Applied to 12-Lead Electrocardiograms for the Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 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.
- Evidence for Electrocardiographic Patterns Identifying Acute Coronary Occlusion in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Scoping Review.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in prehospital assessment of acute coronary syndrome: a scoping review.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in acute and critical care: current challenges and strategic solutions.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) detection using 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs). Methods: Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched up to June 15, 2023. Eligible studies involved adults with suspected ACS and employed AI for 12-lead ECG interpretation. The primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity, with secondary outcomes including positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Risk of bias was evaluated using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results: From 2051 records, 24 studies were included. The sensitivity of AI-based diagnosis for ACS among the 24 studies varied from 68% to 98%, and the specificity varied from 41% to 98%. For subgroup analysis of ST-elevated myocardial infarction/occlusion myocardial infarction, sensitivity ranged from 68% to 97% and specificity from 68% to 99%. AI models outperformed clinicians interpreting ECGs retrospectively without knowledge of outcomes in sensitivity (90% of studies) and PPV (100% of studies), whereas clinicians had better NPV (70% of studies). One study compared AI with real-time emergency department physician interpretations. Three studies reported code availability. Thirty-eight percentage of studies showed a high risk of bias, with 50% showing unclear risk, although applicability concerns were minimal. Conclusion: AI models show high diagnostic accuracy for ACS using 12-lead ECGs, with potential to enhance early diagnosis. However, variability in performance, transparency challenges with limited code availability, a high risk of bias in some studies, and minimal real-time comparisons underscore the necessity for standardized reporting and open-access practices.
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.