ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Coronary artery disease diagnosis with signal processing and machine learning of heart sound signals: a systematic review.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a major contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Heart sound analysis has been investigated as a noninvasive approach to CAD detection, although existing evidence has been inconsistent. This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic performance of heart sound analysis for identifying CAD (≥50% stenosis). A search of four databases identified 1082 records, among which 40 studies involving 13,814 participants met the inclusion criteria. Among the 21 studies using signal processing methods, all but one of the larger studies (>50 participants, n = 15) reported diagnostic accuracy below 75%. The majority of signal processing studies lacked validation on independent datasets, thereby limiting confidence in the reliability of their reported performance. In contrast, 15 of the 19 studies applying machine learning-based methods reported accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity consistently above 80%. Moreover, 15 of these 19 studies conducted independent dataset validation, indicating comparatively stronger generalizability. Studies that used the full heart sound signal as model input also tended to achieve higher sensitivity than those using only the diastolic component, suggesting that utilizing the complete waveform preserves diagnostically informative features. These findings indicate that machine learning-based heart sound analysis may have diagnostic value for CAD, and larger multicenter studies are needed to further assess its clinical applicability and robustness.
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.