MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415159317 · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001009

Are Machine Learning methods effective in detecting undiagnosed atrial fibrillation in primary care settings using electronic health records? A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4415159317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Digital Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewAtrial fibrillationPrimary careMEDLINERandom forestHealth recordsHealth careElectronic health recordRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases the risk of stroke, heart failure and mortality. Current screening guidelines fail to detect AF effectively, and existing models have limited applicability in primary care. Electronic health records (EHRs) provide an opportunity to apply machine learning (ML) for automated AF detection; however, their performance relative to standard care remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness, quality, and applicability of EHR-based ML models for detecting AF in primary care. The review is informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched seven databases from inception to May 2023. Eligible studies involved adults in primary care where ML models using EHRs were compared to standard care. The primary outcome was the detection of undiagnosed AF; secondary outcomes examined impacts on patients, healthcare providers, and systems. Data were extracted using CHARMS, risk of bias and applicability were evaluated through PROBAST and MI-CLAIM checklists. This review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023390603). From 4,536 references screened, 16 studies were included. Among these, 14 (87%) were retrospective cohort studies, one (6%) was prospective, and one (6%) was a randomized controlled trial. Random forest classifiers were the most common ML model (7 studies, 43%). Only 4 studies (25%) underwent external validation, and 8 (53%) were at high risk of bias. Model discrimination (AUROC) ranged from 0.71 to 0.948, with 8 (50%) outperforming controls. Combining ML with clinical tools (3 studies, 19%) significantly improved discrimination compared to ML models alone. Reviewed models identified gout as a nontraditional predictor of AF and demonstrated that dynamic measures of BMI, blood pressure, and heart failure diagnosis were stronger predictors than static measures. EHR-based ML models show promise for improving AF detection in primary care compared to standard care. Their clinical applicability, however, is limited by insufficient external validation, high risk of bias, and variable performance. Future research should prioritize external validation, evaluation in clinical trials and the integration of predictors routinely available in primary care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it