ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Multitask Artificial Intelligence-Based Electrocardiogram Tool for Preoperative Cardiac Testing in Noncardiac Surgery: Retrospective Cohort Study of Health Care Utilization and Costs.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative cardiovascular risk stratification is essential in noncardiac surgery, but conventional testing is frequently overused, increasing costs without improving outcomes. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electrocardiography (ECG) may enhance perioperative risk assessment by identifying surgical candidates at very low-risk for adverse events.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether AI-ECG-based risk stratification could help decrease low-yield preoperative cardiovascular testing and reduce associated costs, without an observed increase in postoperative adverse outcomes, in candidates for noncardiac surgery.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 41,218 patients (46,135 ECG-surgery pairs) undergoing noncardiac surgery at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (2020-2021). An AI-ECG algorithm generated eight probability scores for cardiac conditions, classifying cases as low- or high-risk. Based on the performance and results of preoperative cardiovascular testing (transthoracic echocardiography, coronary computed tomography angiography, single-photon emission computed tomography, or coronary angiography), cases were classified as no advanced cardiovascular imaging, negative-test, or positive-test. The primary end point was a 30-day composite of all-cause mortality and unplanned percutaneous coronary intervention.
resultsAI-ECG classified 92.3% (42,599/46,135) of cases as low-risk, with a composite outcome rate of 0.2% (79/42,599) vs 2.9% (101/3536) in high-risk cases. Preoperative cardiovascular testing was performed in 11.8% (5458/46,135) of cases, with only 16.3% (892/5458) yielding positive findings. In AI-ECG low-risk cases, event rates were uniformly low (0.2%-0.4%) irrespective of whether advanced cardiovascular testing was performed, whereas in high-risk cases, rates were consistently high (2.6%-3.4%). The incidence of the composite outcome was consistently higher in AI-ECG-graded high-risk cases across all European Society of Cardiology surgical risk and Revised Cardiac Risk Index strata.
conclusionsIn this retrospective cohort, a multitask AI-ECG identified surgical candidates at low-risk for postoperative complications, for whom advanced cardiovascular testing demonstrated low diagnostic yield. Integrating AI-ECG with conventional risk tools may offer an exploratory strategy to optimize resource use and minimize redundant testing. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the clinical and economic benefits of AI-ECG as a screening tool.
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.