Human vs Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Coronary Occlusions in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Study.

IF 2.4 Q2 Medicine
JMIR Cardio Pub Date : 2026-10-14 DOI:10.2196/88399
Aurelia Zimmerli, Marion Dupre, Quentin Liabot, C-Yasmine Sellah, David Meier, Adil Salihu, Victor Weerts, Vladimir Rubimbura, Olivier Roux, Olivier Muller, Olivier Hugli, Pierre-Nicolas Carron, Stephane Fournier
{"title":"Human vs Artificial Intelligence in Detecting Coronary Occlusions in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Retrospective Study.","authors":"Aurelia Zimmerli, Marion Dupre, Quentin Liabot, C-Yasmine Sellah, David Meier, Adil Salihu, Victor Weerts, Vladimir Rubimbura, Olivier Roux, Olivier Muller, Olivier Hugli, Pierre-Nicolas Carron, Stephane Fournier","doi":"10.2196/88399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI) on the electrocardiogram (ECG) can present as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, ST depression, or other patterns (eg, de Winter T waves and hyperacute T waves), posing a diagnostic challenge. Even experienced physicians may overlook OMI on ECG, leading to delays in catheterization laboratory activation. Recently, smartphone apps using AI have been shown to exhibit promising accuracy in ECG interpretation in large datasets.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of our study was to retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of an AI-based application (PMCardio) with that of interventional cardiologists in interpreting nonpathognomonic ECGs that generated debates about diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total, 33 ECGs that were diagnostically challenging upon patient admission to the emergency department were included. A group of 3 interventional cardiologists, blinded to the final diagnosis, independently assessed whether the ECG suggested OMI requiring immediate invasive coronary angiography. The diagnostic performance of the cardiologists was compared to that of the AI application, using the results of coronary angiography as the gold standard and considering any lesion with ≥90% stenosis as positive.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 33 patients, 29 (88%) had a final diagnosis of cardiac origin for their chest pain, including 23 acute coronary syndromes, of which 13 (57%) were OMI. The 3 cardiologists achieved sensitivities of 62%, 85%, and 62%; negative predictive values (NPVs) of 74%, 83%, and 69%; specificities of 70%, 50%, and 55%; and positive predictive values (PPVs) of 57%, 52%, and 47%. Their overall misclassification rates were 33%, 36%, and 42%. In contrast, AI analysis demonstrated a sensitivity and NPV of 100%, a specificity of 60%, a PPV of 62%, and an overall misclassification rate of 24%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this retrospective study of challenging ECGs, an AI application demonstrated better diagnostic performance of OMI as compared to cardiologists. These findings highlight the potential of AI to enhance diagnostic accuracy and support clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":14706,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Cardio","volume":"10 ","pages":"e88399"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13664984/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Cardio","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/88399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Occlusion myocardial infarction (OMI) on the electrocardiogram (ECG) can present as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, ST depression, or other patterns (eg, de Winter T waves and hyperacute T waves), posing a diagnostic challenge. Even experienced physicians may overlook OMI on ECG, leading to delays in catheterization laboratory activation. Recently, smartphone apps using AI have been shown to exhibit promising accuracy in ECG interpretation in large datasets.

Objective: The objective of our study was to retrospectively compare the diagnostic performance of an AI-based application (PMCardio) with that of interventional cardiologists in interpreting nonpathognomonic ECGs that generated debates about diagnosis.

Methods: In total, 33 ECGs that were diagnostically challenging upon patient admission to the emergency department were included. A group of 3 interventional cardiologists, blinded to the final diagnosis, independently assessed whether the ECG suggested OMI requiring immediate invasive coronary angiography. The diagnostic performance of the cardiologists was compared to that of the AI application, using the results of coronary angiography as the gold standard and considering any lesion with ≥90% stenosis as positive.

Results: Of the 33 patients, 29 (88%) had a final diagnosis of cardiac origin for their chest pain, including 23 acute coronary syndromes, of which 13 (57%) were OMI. The 3 cardiologists achieved sensitivities of 62%, 85%, and 62%; negative predictive values (NPVs) of 74%, 83%, and 69%; specificities of 70%, 50%, and 55%; and positive predictive values (PPVs) of 57%, 52%, and 47%. Their overall misclassification rates were 33%, 36%, and 42%. In contrast, AI analysis demonstrated a sensitivity and NPV of 100%, a specificity of 60%, a PPV of 62%, and an overall misclassification rate of 24%.

Conclusions: In this retrospective study of challenging ECGs, an AI application demonstrated better diagnostic performance of OMI as compared to cardiologists. These findings highlight the potential of AI to enhance diagnostic accuracy and support clinical decision-making.

人与人工智能在st段抬高型心肌梗死冠状动脉闭塞检测中的对比:回顾性研究。
背景:闭塞性心肌梗死(OMI)在心电图(ECG)上可以表现为ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)、非STEMI、ST段抑制或其他类型(如德温特T波和超急性T波),这给诊断带来了挑战。即使是经验丰富的医生也可能忽视心电图上的OMI,导致导管实验室激活的延迟。最近,使用人工智能的智能手机应用程序已被证明在大型数据集的ECG解释中表现出有希望的准确性。目的:本研究的目的是回顾性比较基于人工智能的应用程序(PMCardio)与介入性心脏病专家在解释引起诊断争议的非病理性心电图时的诊断表现。方法:共纳入33例在急诊科就诊时诊断困难的心电图。一组3名介入心脏病专家,对最终诊断不知情,独立评估心电图是否提示OMI需要立即进行有创冠状动脉造影。将心脏病专家的诊断表现与AI应用程序的诊断表现进行比较,以冠状动脉造影结果为金标准,并将狭窄≥90%的病变视为阳性。结果:33例患者中,29例(88%)胸痛最终诊断为心源性,包括23例急性冠状动脉综合征,其中13例(57%)为OMI。三位心脏病专家的敏感度分别为62%、85%和62%;阴性预测值(npv)分别为74%、83%和69%;特异性分别为70%、50%和55%;阳性预测值(ppv)分别为57%、52%和47%。他们的总体误分类率分别为33%、36%和42%。相比之下,AI分析显示灵敏度和NPV为100%,特异性为60%,PPV为62%,总体误分类率为24%。结论:在这项具有挑战性的心电图回顾性研究中,与心脏病专家相比,人工智能应用程序显示出更好的OMI诊断性能。这些发现突出了人工智能在提高诊断准确性和支持临床决策方面的潜力。
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
JMIR Cardio
JMIR Cardio Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
12 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