SynthesisEuropean journal of medical research2025
Artificial intelligence in pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: Focus on Hypertension.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence and Multi-Omics Approaches in the Precision Management of Pulmonary Hypertension: From Early Diagnosis to Therapeutic Stratification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Clinical research on pulmonary hypertension from a 2025 perspective: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Venous Thromboembolism Prevention: A Narrative Review of Machine Learning, Deep Learning, and Natural Language Processing.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary hypertension (PH) is characterized by elevated pulmonary pressures and right ventricular strain. Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a subtype, has a poor prognosis, especially when diagnosis is delayed. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods, including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), offer potential for non-invasive prediction and risk stratification.
objectiveThis systematic review assesses ML and DL applications for non-invasive diagnosis, classification, and prognostication in PH and PAH, with emphasis on methodological quality and clinical applicability.
methodsA PRISMA-guided search identified studies using ML or DL on non-invasive clinical, imaging, or biomarker data, including omics and laboratory parameters. Study characteristics and heterogeneity were synthesized using the SWiM framework. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST+AI across participant selection, predictors, outcomes, and analysis.
resultsFifty-three studies were included. Most used clinical, echocardiographic, imaging, or molecular data. AUC values ranged from 0.71 to 1.00. DL approaches, especially convolutional neural networks, were increasingly applied but seldom externally validated. Nine studies were multicenter, four prospective, one combined retrospective and prospective cohorts, none were randomized controlled trials. The rest were retrospective single-center studies. In 15 studies, right heart catheterization was either not performed or not clearly reported. SWiM analysis showed substantial heterogeneity in study design and outcome definitions. According to PROBAST +AI, 44 studies (83%) had low risk of bias, though applicability concerns were common.
conclusionML and DL models show promise for PH and PAH diagnosis and prognosis, but limitations in subclass differentiation, methodological transparency, and validation must be addressed in future research.
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.