Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Electrophysiology: A Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a transformative innovation designed to enable machines to perform tasks typically requiring human intelligence. Among various medical fields, cardiology—and particularly electrophysiology—has seen rapid integration of AI technologies. The ability of AI to analyze large and complex datasets is reshaping diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Objectives: This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of AI models and their applications in cardiac electrophysiology. The focus is on understanding how AI contributes to clinical practice through ECG interpretation, arrhythmia detection, atrial mapping, and catheter ablation, while also exploring its limitations and future potential. Methods: The review discusses various AI approaches, including Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL), and highlights relevant literature illustrating their implementation in electrophysiological settings. Key clinical applications are examined thematically, with a narrative synthesis of current capabilities, technologies, and outcomes. Results: AI-based tools have demonstrated effectiveness in identifying supraventricular arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL), as well as complex conditions such as ventricular tachycardias (VTs) and long QT syndrome (LQTS). In procedural contexts, AI enhances electro-anatomical mapping, reduces operative time, and supports tailored post-ablation management. Discussion: While AI offers clear advantages in diagnostic accuracy and procedural efficiency, challenges remain regarding data security, ethical transparency, and clinical adoption. Addressing these limitations will be crucial for integrating AI into routine electrophysiology and maximizing its potential in future cardiology practice.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".