ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Artificial intelligence in cardiology: an evidence map across subspecialties, 2014-26.
Article 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied in healthcare, including cardiology, with growing interest in its potential to support diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical decision-making. The rapid pace of technological advancements is not matched by equivalent progress in the regulation and appraisal of these systems. This review aims to provide a structured evidence map of AI models in cardiology, by grading the robustness of clinical validation and mapping it against the quantity of publications across main subspecialties. Methods and results: To assess the strength of evidence, we defined, developed, and applied a novel classification tailored for AI models that ranks evidence into five Grades of Validation according to the level of clinical validity. We screened literature from 2014 to 2026 according to the PRISMA guidelines, identifying a total of 2807 articles on AI applications within cardiology, 490 of which met the inclusion criteria (validation was performed in at least one external, independent patient population), revealing a highly heterogeneous distribution of evidence across subspecialties. Most studies in AI focused on improved diagnostics ( Conclusion: The scarcity of prospective validations across different resources and geographical settings (
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.