ReviewHerz2026
[Artificial intelligence in risk stratification of acute coronary syndrome : Future vision or already reality?]
Review in Herz, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Artificial intelligence (AI) in cardiology has evolved from rule-based expert systems to data-driven, learning models that can support diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). At their core, these are statistical prediction models that infer conditional probabilities for clinical events from data and are therefore, in principle, ideally suited for risk-based decision making. This review article focuses on risk stratification in ACS, with particular emphasis on the detection of type 1 or occlusive myocardial infarction (MI). Models based on clinical variables and high-sensitivity troponin measurements use continuous troponin values in combination with patient characteristics to estimate individual probabilities of MI instead of relying on fixed troponin thresholds. In retrospective studies, they reduce the "observe zone", enable faster and safer rule-out decisions, and have the potential to relieve pressure on emergency departments. However, they remain dependent on laboratory assays and currently lack prospective evidence of improvements in patient relevant outcomes. Electrocardiogram (ECG)-based approaches promise greater clinical impact: classical machine learning (ML) on preselected ECG features already yields interpretable models that quantify ischemic patterns and can detect occlusive MI even in the absence of ST-segment elevation. Deep learning models applied directly to raw ECG signals additionally exploit subtle spatiotemporal changes and have outperformed conventional ECG interpretation in early studies. Prospective data on the detection of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) indicate that this can shorten the time to reperfusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41533149What 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.