ReviewCardiology research and practice2026
Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis of Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review of Machine Learning Application.
Review in Cardiology research and practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) remains under-recognised, and earlier identification is increasingly important with disease-modifying therapy. Artificial intelligence (AI) applied to routine cardiovascular data may support screening, triage and diagnostic interpretation. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and CENTRAL were searched from inception to August 2026 for studies evaluating AI/machine learning for ATTR-CM detection, screening or classification, including broader cardiac-amyloidosis models with separately extractable ATTR-specific performance and models detecting imaging phenotypes relevant to ATTR-CM screening. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted QUADAS-2 framework, with AI-specific considerations informed by QUADAS-AI development work; selected TRIPOD + AI and CLAIM domains were assessed descriptively. Owing to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not performed. Results: Twenty-eight primary reports were included, representing > 120,000 report-level participant entries, although overlapping cohorts precluded estimation of a unique-patient total. Performance varied by modality and task. AUCs ranged approximately 0.55-0.97 for ECG-containing models, 0.72-1.00 for echocardiography/POCUS and 0.70-0.85 for CT-based single-modality approaches; CMR differentiation of ATTR from AL achieved an AUC of 0.92. Nuclear-imaging models often showed high discrimination, including external-testing AUCs of 0.925-1.000, although several targeted tracer-uptake phenotypes rather than definitive ATTR-CM. Recurrent concerns included enriched populations, limited event counts, internal-only testing, threshold optimisation and incomplete calibration reporting. Conclusions: AI shows promise for ATTR-CM screening and automated interpretation, but reported discrimination should not be equated with real-world clinical performance. Prospective multicentre validation, calibration at realistic prevalence, transparent reporting and workflow-level evaluation are required before routine implementation.
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.