Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41953749›Full record

ArticleBiomedical signal processing and control2026

Explainable artificial intelligence in electrocardiography: A systematic review.

Amirsajjad Taleban, Rodney Sparapani, Patrick Noffke, Sharone Zlochiver, Qiang Lu, Michael E Widlansky, Jake Luo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical signal processing and control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Amirsajjad TalebanHealth Informatics Program, Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-1010-3808
Rodney SparapaniDivision of Biostatistics, Data Science Institute, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Patrick NoffkeJoint Department of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, Medical College of Wisconsin and Marquette, University, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Sharone ZlochiverDiagnostic Cardiology, Baxter International Inc., Greater Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Qiang LuBeijing Key Laboratory of Petroleum Data Mining, China University of Petroleum Beijing, Beijing, China.
Michael E WidlanskyDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Jake LuoHealth Informatics Program, Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001436 · NCATS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI FREED, JULIE K · 2015 to 2025
$47.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electrocardiography (ECG) is a cornerstone of cardiac diagnostics, detecting cardiac pathologies ranging from arrhythmias to myocardial infarction. To enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, deep learning models have been developed that now match or surpass human performance in ECG interpretation. However, their opaque reasoning hinders clinical trust and regulatory approval. This challenge is particularly acute for ECG signals because, unlike structured feature data, they are sequential, variable, and noise-prone, making interpretability both more difficult and more essential for clinical adoption. This review systematically evaluates ECG-specific explainable AI techniques using PRISMA guidelines. We screened 380 records across six databases and included 45 peer-reviewed studies examining diverse explainability methods including perturbation-based, gradient-based, intrinsically interpretable, sequence-aware, and counterfactual approaches. Our analysis reveals that perturbation-based techniques designed for structured data prove suboptimal for ECG signals because they treat features as independent rather than temporally dependent. In contrast, methods that transparently reveal model attention to physiologically meaningful ECG intervals such as the P wave, QRS complex, and ST segment demonstrate superior performance across localization accuracy, fidelity, and robustness metrics. While explainable AI in ECG interpretation has advanced substantially, it remains fragmented and insufficiently validated for clinical deployment. The most promising methods reveal what the model attends to in relation to known physiologic features, yet significant challenges persist in stability, computational efficiency, and regulatory readiness. Accelerating clinical translation requires open, multi-institutional benchmarks with cardiologist-annotated explanations and clinician-in-the-loop validation studies that can strengthen trust and support meaningful integration of explainable AI into patient care.

Indexed as

Clinical decision supportECGElectrocardiographyExplainable artificial intelligenceInterpretability

Identifiers

PMID41953749
PMCPMC13056371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.