ReviewFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine: prevention, diagnosis, and intervention.
Review in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
Recent evidence in the literature suggests that Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming more clinically relevant with expanding applications across cardiovascular medicine and cardiothoracic surgery. Advances in computational power and the widespread digitization of clinical data have enabled AI models to identify complex, nonlinear patterns across multimodal datasets, positioning them as powerful tools for diagnosis, risk stratification, and procedural decision support. This review examines the current and emerging landscape of AI in cardiac care, with a particular focus on valvular heart disease. We synthesize evidence spanning diagnostic applications such as electrocardiographic and echocardiographic interpretation, preoperative planning, and risk prediction for surgical and transcatheter interventions, and real-time intraoperative decision support. Across these domains, AI systems frequently demonstrate performance comparable to or exceeding conventional approaches, particularly in automating standardized tasks and enabling personalized risk assessment. However, most evidence to date derives from retrospective studies, and challenges related to generalizability hold significant barriers to widespread adoption. We further discuss ethical considerations necessary for safe and equitable implementation. Overall, AI shows substantial promise to augment cardiovascular care across the continuum of practice, but its successful translation into routine clinical use will require rigorous prospective validation, transparent model development and interpretability, and carefully designed integration into existing clinical workflows.
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.