Cited by 6Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics

Navigating AI in Cardiology: A Scoping Review of Integration through Clinical Decision Support Systems for Acute Coronary Syndrome

Open access
Chen, Shu-Hui, Wu, Chin-Chieh, Chen, Kuan-Fu·2025·Biomedical Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The integration of AI in diagnosing and managing ACS shows increasing promise, yet challenges remain in translating AI-CDSS into clinical practice. This study evaluates the advancements and limitations of AI for ACS over the past three years, purpose of understanding the scope, limitations, and potential of AI-CDSS in ACS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of recent literature, adhering to guidelines for systematic reviews. We applied QUADAS-2 and PROBAST tools for quality assessment, focusing on biases in study designs. Ten studies about AI-CDSS in ACS management underwent critical analysis, emphasizing the strength of their research methods and the thoroughness of their prospective validation to ensure theoretical integrity and practical reliability. RESULTS: Our research reveals that while discourse around AI-CDSS in ACS management intensifies, obstacles hinder efficacy in practical settings. These challenges include biases in tests and unrepresentative patient selection, pointing to the need for rigorous and inclusive samples. The lack of sufficient external and prospective validation in studies also raises concerns clinical utility of AI-CDSS. The result is the gap between the potential benefits of AI-CDSS and the actual impact of improving diagnostic accuracy and outcomes for ACS limitations identified. CONCLUSIONS: While AI-CDSS shows promise for improving diagnostic accuracy, treatment efficacy, and workflows in ACS, this study highlights the imperative to enhance model validation, including prospective validation, and address lingering diagnostic gaps. Improving study design and mitigating biases remain crucial for the acceptance and effectiveness of AI-CDSS in acute cardiac care settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bj.2025.100853

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In many cases, the accuracy of CDSS is often questioned due to methodological limitations, unrepresentative patient samples, and insufficient external validation, all of which undermine reliability and generalizability.

    “In many cases, the accuracy of CDSS is often questioned due to methodological limitations, unrepresentative patient samples, and insufficient external validation, all of which undermine reliability and generalizability [226].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, S.-H., Wu, C.-C., & Chen, K.-F.
Affiliations
Chang Gung University (TW)
Corresponding author
Chen, Kuan-Fu
Venue
Biomedical Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-10
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
100853
ISSN
2319-4170 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4409464300
Cited by
5
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3
FWCI
0.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomedical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (HHS N2772201400007C)
  • National Science and Technology Council (111-2314-B-182 -017 -MY3)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Keywords
artificial intelligence, clinical decision support systems, acute coronary syndrome, clinical implementation of AI, diagnostic accuracy, prospective validation, model validation, external validation, clinical utility, cardiology
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Cardiology, Humans, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Acute Coronary Syndrome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review