Performance of an artificial intelligence-powered smartphone application in the UK clinical settings: ECG automation compared to healthcare professionals.

Ahmed Kassem, John Folkes, Sahil Mukherjee, James Rosengarten
{"title":"Performance of an artificial intelligence-powered smartphone application in the UK clinical settings: ECG automation compared to healthcare professionals.","authors":"Ahmed Kassem, John Folkes, Sahil Mukherjee, James Rosengarten","doi":"10.1186/s43044-025-00689-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The electrocardiogram (ECG) is widely used in clinical practice, but accurate interpretation requires significant expertise. Variability in training leads to inconsistent diagnostic accuracy amongst healthcare professionals. Artificial intelligence (AI) applications, such as PMCardio (Powerful Medical, Samorin, Slovakia), can digitise and interpret ECGs. While validated in selected populations, its performance compared to clinicians in UK practice has not been assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-six healthcare professionals interpreted eight ECG traces (seven abnormal, one normal). Their performance was compared with the PMCardio application. Accuracy and time were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Healthcare professionals achieved a mean accuracy rate of 67.1% (SD 24.0%), improving with seniority (junior 60%, mid-level 67.5%, senior 80%). PMCardio achieved perfect accuracy on the tested ECGs. Clinicians interpreted faster (median 23.7 s, range 9.1 s) compared to PMCardio (39.0 s, range 8.0 s), noting that the application's timing included operational steps such as loading and capturing ECG images.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PMCardio demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than healthcare professionals but required longer interpretation times. Given the small dataset (8 ECGs) and lack of patient context, results should be interpreted cautiously. While AI tools may support clinicians and enhance consistency, they may also introduce uncertainty for less experienced users. Further studies with larger, real-world datasets are needed before widespread adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":74993,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","volume":"77 1","pages":"97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12532542/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-025-00689-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The electrocardiogram (ECG) is widely used in clinical practice, but accurate interpretation requires significant expertise. Variability in training leads to inconsistent diagnostic accuracy amongst healthcare professionals. Artificial intelligence (AI) applications, such as PMCardio (Powerful Medical, Samorin, Slovakia), can digitise and interpret ECGs. While validated in selected populations, its performance compared to clinicians in UK practice has not been assessed.

Methods: Seventy-six healthcare professionals interpreted eight ECG traces (seven abnormal, one normal). Their performance was compared with the PMCardio application. Accuracy and time were recorded.

Results: Healthcare professionals achieved a mean accuracy rate of 67.1% (SD 24.0%), improving with seniority (junior 60%, mid-level 67.5%, senior 80%). PMCardio achieved perfect accuracy on the tested ECGs. Clinicians interpreted faster (median 23.7 s, range 9.1 s) compared to PMCardio (39.0 s, range 8.0 s), noting that the application's timing included operational steps such as loading and capturing ECG images.

Conclusions: PMCardio demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than healthcare professionals but required longer interpretation times. Given the small dataset (8 ECGs) and lack of patient context, results should be interpreted cautiously. While AI tools may support clinicians and enhance consistency, they may also introduce uncertainty for less experienced users. Further studies with larger, real-world datasets are needed before widespread adoption.

英国临床环境中人工智能驱动的智能手机应用程序的性能:与医疗保健专业人员相比,心电图自动化。
背景:心电图(ECG)广泛应用于临床实践,但准确的解释需要大量的专业知识。培训的可变性导致医疗保健专业人员的诊断准确性不一致。人工智能(AI)应用程序,如PMCardio(强大的医疗,萨摩林,斯洛伐克),可以数字化和解释心电图。虽然在选定人群中得到了验证,但与英国临床医生的实践相比,其表现尚未得到评估。方法:76名医护人员对8条心电图(7条异常,1条正常)进行分析。将其性能与PMCardio应用程序进行了比较。准确度和时间都被记录下来。结果:卫生保健专业人员的平均准确率为67.1%(标准差为24.0%),随年龄增长而提高(初级60%,中级67.5%,高级80%)。PMCardio在测试的心电图上取得了完美的准确性。与PMCardio (39.0 s,范围8.0 s)相比,临床医生的解释速度更快(中位数23.7 s,范围9.1 s),注意到应用程序的时间包括加载和捕获ECG图像等操作步骤。结论:与专业医护人员相比,PMCardio的诊断准确率更高,但需要更长的解释时间。考虑到小数据集(8个心电图)和缺乏患者背景,结果应谨慎解释。虽然人工智能工具可以支持临床医生并增强一致性,但它们也可能为经验不足的用户带来不确定性。在广泛采用之前,需要对更大的真实数据集进行进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书