Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Detecting ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction on 12-Lead Electrocardiograms

Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve electrocardiographic detection of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but available studies address distinct diagnostic questions. We systematically reviewed studies evaluating AI-based STEMI detection from 12-lead electrocardiograms and separately synthesized AI performance against a clinical reference standard, AI and clinician performance against a clinical reference, and AI agreement with physician electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2010 through March 10, 2025. Bivariate random-effects models generated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC). Twenty-six studies comprising 539,876 ECGs were included. In 20 studies comparing AI with a clinical reference standard, pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.97), specificity 0.95 (0.90-0.98), AUC 0.98 (0.97-0.99), positive likelihood ratio 19.2 (9.3-39.5), and negative likelihood ratio 0.05 (0.03-0.10). In 8 studies reporting both AI and clinician performance against a clinical reference, separate syntheses showed sensitivity of 0.91 (0.86-0.94) for AI versus 0.78 (0.69-0.85) for clinicians, specificity of 0.91 (0.82-0.96) for both, and AUCs of 0.95 and 0.90, respectively. In 7 studies using physician ECG interpretation as the comparator, AI sensitivity was 0.85 (0.70-0.94), specificity 0.99 (0.96-1.00), and AUC 0.98 (0.96-0.99). Sensitivity analyses excluding case-control designs, influential studies, and restricting analyses to deep-learning models or raw-waveform ECGs produced similar findings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cardiology in Review
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/crd.0000000000001515
Primary Topic
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Detecting ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction on 12-Lead Electrocardiograms

Bahar Darouei, William H. Frishman, Muhammad Yasir Adeel, Reza Amani‐Beni et al.
1 links
Cardiology in Review
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence for Detecting ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction on 12-Lead Electrocardiograms

Bahar Darouei, William H. Frishman, Muhammad Yasir Adeel, Reza Amani‐Beni, Nahid Gavili, Wilbert S. Aronow, Ali Namazi, Kasra Shokri, Azin Karimian, Mohammadi Abbas
article en

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve electrocardiographic detection of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but available studies address distinct diagnostic questions. We systematically reviewed studies evaluating AI-based STEMI detection from 12-lead electrocardiograms and separately synthesized AI performance against a clinical reference standard, AI and clinician performance against a clinical reference, and AI agreement with physician electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 2010 through March 10, 2025. Bivariate random-effects models generated pooled sensitivity, specificity, and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC). Twenty-six studies comprising 539,876 ECGs were included. In 20 studies comparing AI with a clinical reference standard, pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-0.97), specificity 0.95 (0.90-0.98), AUC 0.98 (0.97-0.99), positive likelihood ratio 19.2 (9.3-39.5), and negative likelihood ratio 0.05 (0.03-0.10). In 8 studies reporting both AI and clinician performance against a clinical reference, separate syntheses showed sensitivity of 0.91 (0.86-0.94) for AI versus 0.78 (0.69-0.85) for clinicians, specificity of 0.91 (0.82-0.96) for both, and AUCs of 0.95 and 0.90, respectively. In 7 studies using physician ECG interpretation as the comparator, AI sensitivity was 0.85 (0.70-0.94), specificity 0.99 (0.96-1.00), and AUC 0.98 (0.96-0.99). Sensitivity analyses excluding case-control designs, influential studies, and restricting analyses to deep-learning models or raw-waveform ECGs produced similar findings.

Cardiology in Review
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (IR), Westchester Medical Center (US), University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US), New York Medical College (US), Valley Hospital Medical Center (US), Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences (IR), Valley Health System (US), Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US), Mayo Clinic Hospital (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
ECG Monitoring and Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon