ReviewEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography for detection of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) is an early precursor to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and it is currently diagnosed using echocardiography, a resource-intensive and operator-dependent modality that limits large-scale screening. The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is widely available but lacks sufficient diagnostic accuracy for LVDD. Artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced ECG analysis has emerged as a potential scalable alternative, although its overall diagnostic performance remains uncertain. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based algorithms for detecting LVDD in a systematic review and meta-analysis. We systematically searched eight major databases through August 2025, complemented by forward and backward citation chasing. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity of AI-ECG models, using echocardiography as the reference standard, were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were estimated using a bivariate random-effects model. Five studies including 105 554 participants were analysed. AI-ECG demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.81-0.83) and specificity of 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70-0.82), with an AUC of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.81-0.87). Substantial heterogeneity was observed (
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.