Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based models for acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Clicks: 9
ID: 333698
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #158 of 164 articles by views in cardiovascular research

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 164 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aims Despite continuous improvements in diagnostic tools, the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is still based on electrocardiogram (ECG) and cardiac biomarkers supported by other non-invasive imaging techniques. However, ECG has limited sensitivity, while high-sensitivity troponin assays may show reduced specificity, particularly in older or multimorbid patients. Widely adopted clinical pathways (e.g. ESC 0/1 h algorithm) have reported high diagnostic discrimination in external cohorts (with AUC ranging from 0.93 to 0.96) which provides clinical context for interpreting our findings. These diagnostic tests have limitations that can be addressed through automated computer-based diagnostic systems using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Several studies in the literature have presented machine learning (ML) or deep learning (DL) models to quickly and accurately assess the diagnosis of AMI to optimize treatment. Methods and results The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the performance of AI-based models for the diagnosis of AMI using data from all validation and test cohorts available in literature. Sensitivity and specificity for all MIs, and for STEMI and NSTEMI separately, were analysed for different types of AI approach (non-DL or DL) and for different data sources (ECG or troponin-based). Hierarchical models were used to estimate the summary receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity and specificity. A total of 24 studies evaluating 27 AI-based diagnostic algorithms were included encompassing 166.052 patients, of which 18.850 (11.3%) had a final diagnosis of AMI. Patients were predominantly male (61.8%) with a median age of 60.7 (IQR 59.0-64.1) years. Discrimination of AI-based algorithms for the diagnosis of AMI was high with an AUC of 0.97 (sensitivity 0.93, specificity 0.92). This result remained consistent when considering the ability to diagnose STEMI (AUC 0.96, sensitivity 0.91, specificity 0.94) or NSTEMI (AUC 0.97, sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.90) separately. No significant difference was found regarding type of AI. ECG and troponin-based models were both extremely accurate, with the first ones being less sensitive and the latter less specific Conclusions AI-based diagnostic algorithms for AMI diagnosis were associated with particularly efficient performance. These results were consistent for both STEMI and NSTEMI considered separately. Rather than replacing conventional diagnostic pathways, AI has the potential to enhance existing tools by identifying subtle ECG features and integrating multiple data streams. While direct head-to-head comparisons with traditional statistical models are currently limited, future prospective studies evaluating AI and conventional approaches within the same clinical populations are warranted.AI did not lose accuracy depending on the data source or the type of AI applied.
Reference Key
openalex_W7223381007 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Federico Giacobbe, Ovidio DE Filippo, Manuel Petracca, Marco Nebiolo, R A Cimino, Matteo Michelone, Sergio Capoccia, Joonghee Kim, Wei‐Shiang Lin, Joon‐myoung Kwon, Francesco Bruno, Marco Balducci, Dukyong Yoon, Hak Seung Lee, Dimitrios Doudesis, Kuan Ken Lee, Pedro López‐Ayala, Nicholas L. Mills, Jasper Boeddinghaus, Marco Grangetto, Marco A. Deriu, Christian Eugen Mueller, Piero Fariselli, Thomas Luscher, Gaetano Maria De Ferrari, Fabrizio D'Ascenzo
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal cardiovascular research
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/cvr/cvag248
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvag248
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.