ReviewIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal
Understanding Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the Electrophysiologist.
Review in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. 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.
- Multimodal Characterization of Atrial Fibrillation: From Patient-Specific Anatomy and Electrophysiology to Standardized Atrial Mapping.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly incorporated into clinical electrophysiology, Applications now span automated ECG interpretation, arrhythmia detection, risk stratification, procedural planning, and workflow support. At the same time, variability in methodological rigor, validation standards, and clinical integration has led to uncertainty regarding how these tools should be interpreted and used in clinical practice. This review provides a practical primer on AI for electrophysiologists, with the goal of supporting informed evaluation and responsible clinical adoption. We outline the historical evolution of AI, from rule-based systems to contemporary machine learning, deep learning, and emerging generative AI and large language models. Core methodological concepts are reviewed, with emphasis on data provenance, labeling, validation strategy, and the distinctions between analytical performance and clinical utility. Common failure modes are examined, including bias and lack of representativeness, overfitting, limited interpretability, workflow misalignment, and overstatement of clinical readiness. We further discuss how regulatory agencies evaluate AI-based electrophysiology tools, what regulatory clearance establishes, and what it does not. Particular attention is given to the implications of static model review, device-specific validation, and intended use constraints, and to the continuing responsibility of clinicians in appropriate deployment and oversight. Finally, we consider future directions for AI in electrophysiology, including individualized modeling approaches, expert decision support in resource-constrained settings, and applications aimed at improving efficiency and access to care. This review provides electrophysiologists with a practical framework to interpret current AI evidence and to actively guide how AI is evaluated, adopted, and translated to clinical practice.
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.