Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42886644›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2026

Artificial intelligence-enhanced electrocardiography for predicting mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Elhaitham Yasir Awad Musa, Amar Yasir Awad Musa

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elhaitham Yasir Awad MusaFaculty of Medicine, National Ribat University, Khartoum, Sudan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8319-8536
Amar Yasir Awad MusaFaculty of Medicine, National Ribat University, Khartoum, Sudan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. While clinical scores provide modest predictive accuracy, the electrocardiogram (ECG) is rarely leveraged for prognosis. Artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning now enable extraction of high-dimensional features from ECG waveforms for predicting cardiovascular outcomes. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the prognostic performance of AI-enabled ECG models for predicting all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar through November 2025 for studies using AI/ML models with 12-lead or single-lead ECGs to predict all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or MACE in adults (≥18 years old). Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) using ECG as primary input. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. Narrative synthesis was conducted due to heterogeneity. Thirteen studies were included (~5.9 million patients). Eleven reported all-cause mortality (8 short-term: 30-day to 1-year), four reported cardiovascular mortality, and eight assessed MACE (4 composite MACE, 4 individual components). Models predominantly used convolutional neural networks [CNNs] on raw ECG waveforms. C-statistics ranged 0.70-0.89 for mortality prediction. Definitions and follow-up durations varied, limiting direct comparison. AI-ECG models demonstrate strong potential for predicting mortality and cardiovascular events with consistent performance and scalability. However, prospective validation and standardization are essential before clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCardiovascular DiseasesElectrocardiographyHumansPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID42886644
PMCPMC13674701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.