The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Models Applied to 12-Lead Electrocardiograms for the Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.9 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Aly Fawzy, Aleena Malik, Juan Pablo Diaz-Martinez, Ani Orchanian-Cheff, Sameer Masood
{"title":"The Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Models Applied to 12-Lead Electrocardiograms for the Diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Aly Fawzy, Aleena Malik, Juan Pablo Diaz-Martinez, Ani Orchanian-Cheff, Sameer Masood","doi":"10.1016/j.acepjo.2025.100240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) detection using 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched up to June 15, 2023. Eligible studies involved adults with suspected ACS and employed AI for 12-lead ECG interpretation. The primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity, with secondary outcomes including positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Risk of bias was evaluated using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2051 records, 24 studies were included. The sensitivity of AI-based diagnosis for ACS among the 24 studies varied from 68% to 98%, and the specificity varied from 41% to 98%. For subgroup analysis of ST-elevated myocardial infarction/occlusion myocardial infarction, sensitivity ranged from 68% to 97% and specificity from 68% to 99%. AI models outperformed clinicians interpreting ECGs retrospectively without knowledge of outcomes in sensitivity (90% of studies) and PPV (100% of studies), whereas clinicians had better NPV (70% of studies). One study compared AI with real-time emergency department physician interpretations. Three studies reported code availability. Thirty-eight percentage of studies showed a high risk of bias, with 50% showing unclear risk, although applicability concerns were minimal.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AI models show high diagnostic accuracy for ACS using 12-lead ECGs, with potential to enhance early diagnosis. However, variability in performance, transparency challenges with limited code availability, a high risk of bias in some studies, and minimal real-time comparisons underscore the necessity for standardized reporting and open-access practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":"6 5","pages":"100240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12529686/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acepjo.2025.100240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) detection using 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs).

Methods: Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched up to June 15, 2023. Eligible studies involved adults with suspected ACS and employed AI for 12-lead ECG interpretation. The primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity, with secondary outcomes including positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Risk of bias was evaluated using Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).

Results: From 2051 records, 24 studies were included. The sensitivity of AI-based diagnosis for ACS among the 24 studies varied from 68% to 98%, and the specificity varied from 41% to 98%. For subgroup analysis of ST-elevated myocardial infarction/occlusion myocardial infarction, sensitivity ranged from 68% to 97% and specificity from 68% to 99%. AI models outperformed clinicians interpreting ECGs retrospectively without knowledge of outcomes in sensitivity (90% of studies) and PPV (100% of studies), whereas clinicians had better NPV (70% of studies). One study compared AI with real-time emergency department physician interpretations. Three studies reported code availability. Thirty-eight percentage of studies showed a high risk of bias, with 50% showing unclear risk, although applicability concerns were minimal.

Conclusion: AI models show high diagnostic accuracy for ACS using 12-lead ECGs, with potential to enhance early diagnosis. However, variability in performance, transparency challenges with limited code availability, a high risk of bias in some studies, and minimal real-time comparisons underscore the necessity for standardized reporting and open-access practices.

人工智能模型应用于12导联心电图诊断急性冠脉综合征的准确性:系统综述。
目的:本系统综述旨在评估人工智能(AI)算法在12导联心电图(ECGs)检测急性冠脉综合征(ACS)中的诊断准确性。方法:根据系统评价的首选报告项目指南,检索截至2023年6月15日的Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid Embase、Cochrane Central和Cochrane系统评价数据库。符合条件的研究涉及疑似ACS的成人,并采用人工智能进行12导联心电图解释。主要结局是敏感性和特异性,次要结局包括阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和准确性。使用预测模型偏倚风险评估工具(PROBAST)评估偏倚风险。结果:从2051份记录中,纳入24项研究。24项研究中,基于人工智能诊断ACS的敏感性为68% ~ 98%,特异性为41% ~ 98%。对于st段升高的心肌梗死/闭塞性心肌梗死的亚组分析,敏感性为68%至97%,特异性为68%至99%。在敏感性(90%的研究)和PPV(100%的研究)方面,人工智能模型优于临床医生在不知道结果的情况下回顾性解释心电图,而临床医生的NPV(70%的研究)更好。一项研究将人工智能与急诊医生的实时口译进行了比较。三个研究报告了代码可用性。38%的研究显示高偏倚风险,50%的研究显示风险不明确,尽管适用性问题很小。结论:人工智能模型对12导联心电图的ACS诊断准确率较高,具有提高早期诊断的潜力。然而,性能的可变性、代码可用性有限的透明度挑战、一些研究中的高偏差风险以及最小的实时比较都强调了标准化报告和开放获取实践的必要性。
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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
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