ReviewEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Foundation models for cardiovascular diseases and medicine.
Review in European heart journal. Digital health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide, accounting for more than 17 million deaths annually. Foundation models (FMs) are large-scale artificial intelligence systems pre-trained on broad datasets and increasingly studied for cardiovascular diagnosis, risk prediction, workflow support, and treatment personalization. This narrative review synthesizes evidence on FMs applied to cardiovascular medicine, including text-based, image-based, multimodal, and time-series models. The review examined model architectures, training strategies, performance metrics, clinical applications, implementation challenges, and evidence maturity using a three-tier framework. Cardiovascular FMs show promising but unevenly validated capabilities across multiple applications. Electrocardiogram (ECG)-based models such as ECGFounder have reported strong external validation performance for rhythm and conduction diagnoses, whereas imaging models such as Echo-Vision-FM support cardiac function assessment and pathology classification. Multimodal models, including CardioGPT and EchoCLIP, illustrate the potential value of integrating clinical text, imaging, and physiological signals, although several remain at a conceptual or proof-of-concept stage. Foundation models may become important tools in cardiovascular medicine by supporting earlier diagnosis, risk stratification, and clinical decision-making. However, the current evidence base remains heterogeneous, and major barriers persist, including limited interpretability, underrepresentation of diverse populations in training data, regulatory uncertainty, computational demands, and workflow integration challenges. Inclusive data development, transparent reporting, external validation, prospective clinical evaluation, and interdisciplinary implementation research are needed before these models can be deployed safely and equitably in routine cardiovascular care.
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.