Cited by 11Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeECG Monitoring and AnalysisArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Economic analysis of an AI-enabled ECG alert system: impact on mortality outcomes from a pragmatic randomized trial

Open access
Hsieh, Ping-Hsuan, Lin, Chin, Lin, Chin-Sheng, Liu, Wei-Ting, Lin, Tsung-Kun, Tsai, Dung-Jang, Hung, Yi-Jen, Chen, Yuan-Hao +3 more·2025·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Findings from a previous study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05118035) demonstrated that an AI-enabled electrocardiogram (AI-ECG), combining AI reports and physician alerts, effectively identified hospitalized patients at high risk of mortality and reduced all-cause mortality. This study evaluates its cost-effectiveness from the health payer's perspective in Taiwan over a 90-day post-intervention period. Cost data were obtained from electronic health records of participating hospitals, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per death averted were calculated. Non-parametric bootstrap techniques were used to address uncertainty. Among 15,965 patients, 90-day all-cause mortality was 3.6% in the intervention group versus 4.3% in controls. Medication and ICU costs were higher in the AI-ECG group, but overall medical cost was similar ($6204 vs. $5803). The ICER was $59,500 (95% CI: $-4657 to $385,950) per death averted. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that 95% of the probability mass lies below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $409,321, supporting favorable cost-effectiveness despite uncertainty.

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 · 10.1038/s41746-025-01735-7

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?

  • The economic value of AI-ECG will depend less on the marginal cost of running the algorithm than on whether it improves the targeting of confirmatory testing and patient outcomes.

    “Its economic value will depend less on the marginal cost of running the algorithm than on whether it improves the targeting of confirmatory testing and patient outcomes [43].”

    From Deep Learning Applied to 12-Lead ECGs for Detection of Structural, Metabolic and Systemic Disease (2026) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Discussion says the algorithm’s cost had little effect on cost-effectiveness and focuses instead on the costs of subsequent interventions relative to reduced mortality. It mentions echocardiograms to confirm low ejection fraction in a previous trial, but does not show that the alert system studied here improved the targeting of confirmatory testing. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Taiwanese ARISE economic analysis evaluated an inpatient AI-ECG mortality-alert strategy and reported an ICER of $59,500 per death averted; it should be regarded as adjacent evidence for AI-enabled cardiovascular alerting rather than direct corroboration of low-LVEF screening cost-effectiveness.

    “By contrast, the Taiwanese ARISE economic analysis evaluated an inpatient AI-ECG mortality-alert strategy and reported an ICER of $59,500 per death averted; it should therefore be regarded as adjacent evidence for AI-enabled cardiovascular alerting rather than direct corroboration of low-LVEF screening cost-effectiveness.58”

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
Hsieh, P.-H., Lin, C., Lin, C.-S., Liu, W.-T., Lin, T.-K., Tsai, D.-J., Hung, Y.-J., Chen, Y.-H., Lin, C.-Y., Lin, S.-H., & Tsai, C.-S.
Affiliations
  • National Defense Medical Center (TW)
  • Tri-Service General Hospital (TW)
Corresponding author
Tsai, Chien-Sung
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2025-06-11
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
348-348
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411164605
Cited by
11
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 2
FWCI
10.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC 113-2320-B-016-011)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
mortality prediction, cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, all-cause mortality, hospitalized patients, cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, Taiwan

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