Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
European Heart Journal - Digital Health · September 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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 (n = 322, 65.7%); however, advanced integration in prognostic (n = 122, 24.9%) and therapeutic applications remains limited (n = 46, 9.4%). Cardiovascular imaging leads AI applications, especially in coronary computed tomography and echocardiography, followed by non-invasive electrophysiology, predominantly in atrial fibrillation screening and ventricular dysfunction detection. Conclusion The scarcity of prospective validations across different resources and geographical settings (n = 134, 27.3%) and randomized controlled trials (n = 35, 3.8%) limits the adoption by clinical guidelines and widespread implementation of AI algorithms.