ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Temporal Variability and Influence of Measurement Conditions of AI-Based Atrial Fibrillation Risk Estimation.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical and Echocardiographic Factors Associated With AI-Estimated Atrial Fibrillation Likelihood During Sinus Rhythm in Patients With Documented Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Temporal Variability and Influence of Measurement Conditions of AI-Based Atrial Fibrillation Risk Estimation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been developed to identify patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) during sinus rhythm, information on its variability remains limited. We evaluated the reproducibility and effect of recording condition on the estimation of AF risk using an electrocardiography (ECG) machine equipped with an AI-based program. Methods: We extracted two ECG data from a single ECG test in 149 patients to evaluate reproducibility within 4 min. We also recorded ECG signals under 12 conditions (standard, two conditions shifting precordial electrodes, five conditions moving limb electrodes to the torso, three conditions contaminating noise, and reproducibility over 15 min) in 30 participants to evaluate changes from the standard. The results of the AF risk estimation are expressed at four levels. Results: The rate of participants within one level of error was 95% for reproducibility within 4 min and 87% for reproducibility over 15 min. Shifting the precordial electrodes upward or downward and replacing the left leg electrode with the torso electrode frequently caused a two- or three-level change. In clinical information, increased brain natriuretic peptide tended to increase the variability. Conclusions: The AF risk estimated by the AI-based program exhibited temporal variability. Shifting the precordial electrodes influenced AI-based AF risk estimation.
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.