Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 46 references

AI-Driven Early Detection of Cardiovascular Diseases: Reducing Healthcare Costs and improving patient Outcomes

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This systematic review argues that adding AI to cardiovascular diagnostics makes early detection faster and more accurate, and that this would lower healthcare costs and improve patient outcomes.

desk verdict Table 1's five 'studies' don't exist in the reference list, so the paper's quantitative case for cost savings is untraceable — desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08229 v1 pith:5GJKUIX2 submitted 2025-06-09 q-bio.TO cs.AI

Ahasan Ahmed , Albatoul Khaled , Muhammad Waqar , DrJavaid Akhtar Hashmi , Hazem AbdulKareem Alfanash , Wesam Taher Almagharbeh , Amine Hamdache , Ilias Elmouki This is my paper
classification q-bio.TOcs.AI
keywords artificialintelligencecardiovasculardiseaseearlydetectionmachinelearningdeephealthcarecostspatientoutcomessystematicreview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This systematic review argues that adding artificial intelligence to cardiovascular diagnostics makes early detection of heart disease faster and more accurate than conventional clinical evaluation, and that the shift would lower healthcare spending while improving patient outcomes. The paper's evidence is a table of five machine-learning studies reporting accuracies between 0.85 and 0.92 across four public datasets. On that basis, the authors conclude that AI-assisted screening should become a routine complement to traditional diagnosis, catching disease before expensive late-stage treatment is needed.

What carries the argument

The central object carrying the argument is Table 1, which lists five machine-learning models, their datasets, and their reported accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC values. The table does the work of demonstrating that AI-based diagnostics perform well across different algorithms and datasets; the paper's conclusion about cost savings and better outcomes is inferred directly from these numbers, with the high and consistent metrics standing in for evidence that AI would improve diagnostic acuity in practice.

What would settle it

Re-run the five models on their named datasets under a single preprocessing and validation protocol; if the reported accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC values do not reappear, or if the underlying studies cannot be located, the paper's claim that AI diagnostics outperform conventional care is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that machine-learning models—logistic regression, support vector machines, neural networks, random forests, and gradient boosting—can predict cardiovascular risk from routine clinical data with high accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC, and that this diagnostic acuity translates into earlier intervention, better patient outcomes, and reduced overall healthcare expenditures. The authors present this as a systematic synthesis of five studies, with the neural network on the MESA dataset reported as the best performer (accuracy 0.92, AUC 0.94) and gradient boosting on UK Biobank close behind (accuracy 0.89, AUC 0.91). They further claim that the consistency of results across Framingham Heart Study, Cleveland Heart Disease, MESA, and UK Biobank shows the models are transferable across patient populations, making them suitable for integration into varied clinical settings.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the five studies in Table 1 being real and on their reported accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC values being accurate and comparable; if those numbers are wrong or cannot be reproduced, the conclusion that AI improves early detection and reduces costs is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, AI-assisted ECG interpretation could become a standard screening step in primary care, detecting arrhythmias and silent dysfunction earlier than current practice.
  • Clinical decision-support tools trained on electronic health records could flag high-risk patients for preventive treatment before they progress to late-stage disease.
  • Hospitals adopting these models would spend less on expensive terminal and emergency cardiovascular care, offsetting the cost of algorithm development and integration.
  • The reported transferability across Framingham, Cleveland, MESA, and UK Biobank suggests the models could generalize to diverse patient populations, supporting adoption beyond a single institution.
  • Widespread use of AI monitoring, including wearable devices, would shift cardiovascular care from reactive treatment toward preventive, continuous assessment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to run the five model/dataset combinations under a single preprocessing and validation protocol; comparable performance would turn the table into a much stronger claim than the current narrative.
  • The cost-reduction argument is plausible but under-specified; the actual savings would depend on the alert threshold, since a high-recall model generates more false positives and more follow-up visits.
  • The review implicitly calls for prospective, externally validated trials comparing AI-assisted screening with usual care on hard outcomes such as mortality, not just AUC—an inference from the paper's own stated limitations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is presented as a systematic review claiming that integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into early cardiovascular disease (CVD) detection improves diagnostic accuracy, reduces diagnostic time, improves patient outcomes, and lowers healthcare costs. The central quantitative evidence is Table 1, which reports accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC for five machine-learning models attributed to Smith et al. (2019), Johnson et al. (2020), Lee et al. (2021), Kim et al. (2022), and Patel et al. (2023), using datasets such as Framingham, Cleveland, MESA, and UK Biobank. The paper synthesizes these numbers into a broad conclusion that AI and machine learning should be adopted in cardiovascular diagnostics. No code, data extraction forms, or reproducible analysis artifacts are provided.

Significance. If the quantitative claims were properly supported, this paper could serve as a useful scoping review of AI-based CVD diagnostics and their potential economic implications. However, the paper's specific contribution is not established: the Table 1 metrics cannot be traced to the listed references, the study selection process is internally inconsistent, and no cost or patient-outcome data are analyzed. The general idea that AI tools can assist cardiovascular diagnosis is consistent with existing literature, but the manuscript supplies no verifiable new evidence and no reproducible artifacts (no PRISMA checklist, no search log, no data extraction table).

major comments (5)
  1. [Results, Table 1] Table 1 is the sole quantitative basis for the abstract, Results, and Discussion claims, but none of the five author-year entries (Smith et al. 2019, Johnson et al. 2020, Lee et al. 2021, Kim et al. 2022, Patel et al. 2023) appears in the reference list. The bracketed citations [1]–[5] in the table point instead to Johnson et al. 2018, Topol 2019, Esteva et al. 2017, Gulshan et al. 2016, and LeCun et al. 2015, none of which is a CVD machine-learning study reporting the displayed accuracy, precision, recall, or AUC values. The central empirical results are therefore unverifiable, and the conclusions drawn from them are unsupported as written.
  2. [Material and methods, Study Selection Process] The Study Selection Process states that the final selection "were five major works and twelve other works," implying 17 included studies, while the Figure 1 description says 150 records were screened, 50 were identified by title/abstract, 20 were chosen for full-text analysis, and 5 papers were selected. The manuscript never reconciles the 17 papers with the 5 selected, and no list of the 12 or 17 records is given. This inconsistency makes the systematic review process non-reproducible and undermines the claim that the review followed a clear selection protocol.
  3. [Material and methods, Data Extraction and Analysis] The methods section does not report a search log, exact database query strings, search dates, duplicate-handling procedures, or a risk-of-bias/quality assessment. For a manuscript explicitly labeled a systematic review, these elements are standard and load-bearing: without them, the reader cannot determine whether the five studies in Table 1 were systematically identified or whether any inclusion/exclusion criteria were actually applied. The absence of this documentation is not merely a presentation issue because the paper's conclusions depend on the trustworthiness of the review process.
  4. [Discussion and Conclusion] The accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC values in Table 1 are diagnostic performance metrics; they do not provide evidence about healthcare expenditures, resource utilization, length of stay, or patient-centered outcomes. The conclusion that AI implementation would "consequently decrease the overall healthcare expenditures through timely intervention" is an inferential leap unsupported by any economic analysis, cost data, or before-after comparison in the manuscript. No cost outcomes were extracted or reported, despite the title and abstract promising a connection to healthcare costs.
  5. [Results] Table 1 reports point estimates for each model without sample sizes, confidence intervals, or external validation details. Two rows (Smith et al. and Kim et al.) use the Framingham Heart Study dataset with different models, but no statistical comparison or paired testing is provided. The text's claim that "neural networks and boosting algorithms to be superior" is therefore not supported by the table as presented; the differences could easily be within sampling variability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains grammatical and typographical errors, including "lee time consuming" and "the diagnosis of CVDs become more accurate," which should be corrected for clarity.
  2. [Literature review] The in-text citation "[81]" for Attia et al. (2019) is inconsistent with the reference list, which contains only 50 entries; citation numbers are used erratically throughout the manuscript.
  3. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is described in the text but the actual flowchart is not included; the manuscript should either display the figure or remove the reference to it.
  4. [Discussion] The Discussion contains the typo "mdml" in the phrase "benefits that would accrue from using mdml," which should read "ML".
  5. [References] Several author-year citations in the text (e.g., Nichols et al. 2014, Krittanawong et al. 2017, Bozkurt et al. 2021) do not have matching reference list entries under those names, making it difficult to trace the cited literature.
  6. [Material and methods, Search Strategy] The search strategy should specify the exact query strings, database-specific search dates, and how the 2010–2024 range was applied, since the description is too vague to replicate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found; the paper is a narrative review whose conclusions restate cited literature rather than a derivation from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a systematic/narrative review of AI for early cardiovascular disease detection. Its central claim—that AI improves diagnostic accuracy, patient outcomes, and healthcare costs—is supported by a summary table (Table 1) of five machine-learning models and by narrative citations to prior work. There is no fitted parameter, no derived equation, and no prediction generated from a model trained in this paper. The conclusions in the Results and Discussion are restatements of the cited literature, which is the normal operation of a review, not circular reasoning. The citation numbering in Table 1 is inconsistent: the bracketed markers [1]–[5] point to references that do not report the stated metrics, and the named author-year entries (Smith et al. 2019, Johnson et al. 2020, Lee et al. 2021, Kim et al. 2022, Patel et al. 2023) do not appear in the reference list. This is a serious verifiability and provenance problem, but it is not circularity: the review's logic does not reduce to its own outputs by construction. There is a reference to 'Ahmed Z, Mohamed K, Zeeshan S, et al.' (reference 11), and one author shares a surname with the first author, but this citation is not load-bearing for the main argument and is not used to forbid alternatives or to justify a uniqueness claim. No self-citation chain, no ansatz-smuggling via citation, and no renaming of a known empirical result under new coordinates was identified. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new entities. However, it relies on unverifiable external study results, a small and unrepresentative sample, and an untested causal assumption that earlier AI detection lowers costs.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The five studies named in Table 1 exist and report the listed metrics.
    The paper's quantitative evidence depends on these external studies, but no matching references are provided in the reference list.
  • domain assumption The five selected papers are representative of the evidence on AI in CVD diagnosis.
    The review generalizes to healthcare costs and patient outcomes from a small, unspecified selection of studies.
  • domain assumption Earlier diagnosis via AI mechanically reduces healthcare costs.
    The cost-reduction claim assumes late-stage care causes most spending and that early detection avoids it, without a cost model or baseline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AI-Driven Early Detection of Cardiovascular Diseases: Reducing Healthcare Costs and improving patient Outcomes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5GJKUIX2

@misc{pith2026250608229,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AI-Driven Early Detection of Cardiovascular Diseases: Reducing Healthcare Costs and improving patient Outcomes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5GJKUIX2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08229}
}
read the original abstract

The main goal from this study is to discuss the main features of Artificial intelligence (AI) as well as their applicability for early cardiovascular Disease (CVDs) Detection, Material and Method : Systematic review approach Results : It was seen that integrating AI algorithm the diagnosis of CVDs become more accurate and lee time consuming. Conclusion: Now the concept of using AI technologies in cardiovascular health care holds the potential to transform disease management .

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology

    Johnson KW, Torres Soto J, Glicksberg BS, et al. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(23):2668-2679

    work page 2018

  2. [5]

    Deep learning

    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-444. 6. Hannun AY, Rajpurkar P, Haghpanahi M, et al. Cardiologist-level arrhythmia detection and classification in ambulatory electrocardiograms using a deep neural network. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):65-69

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence

    Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks

    Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542(7639):115-118

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs

    Gulshan V, Peng L, Coram M, et al. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2402-2410

    work page 2016

  6. [7]

    Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records

    Rajkomar A, Oren E, Chen K, et al. Scalable and accurate deep learning with electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:18

    work page 2018

  7. [8]

    Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram

    Attia ZI, Kapa S, Lopez-Jimenez F, et al. Screening for cardiac contractile dysfunction using an artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiogram. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):70-74

    work page 2019

  8. [9]

    Evaluation and accurate diagnoses of pediatric diseases using artificial intelligence

    Liang H, Tsui BY, Ni H, et al. Evaluation and accurate diagnoses of pediatric diseases using artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(3):433-438

    work page 2019

Show all 46 references
  1. [10]

    Machine Learning in Medicine

    Deo RC. Machine Learning in Medicine. Circulation. 2015;132(20):1920-1930. 11. Ahmed Z, Mohamed K, Zeeshan S, et al. Artificial intelligence with multi-functional machine learning platform development for better healthcare and precision medicine. Database (Oxford). 2020;2020:baaa010

    2015

  2. [12]

    Distributed deep learning networks among institutions for medical imaging

    Chang K, Balachandar N, Lam C, et al. Distributed deep learning networks among institutions for medical imaging. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(8):945-954

    2018

  3. [13]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis

    Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE, et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis. Med Image Anal. 2017;42:60-88

    2017

  4. [14]

    Enabling Precision Cardiology through Multiscale Biology and Systems Medicine

    Johnson KW, Glicksberg BS, Shameer K, et al. Enabling Precision Cardiology through Multiscale Biology and Systems Medicine. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2017;2(3):311-327

    2017

  5. [15]

    Fast and accurate view classification of echocardiograms using deep learning

    Madani A, Arnaout R, Mofrad M, et al. Fast and accurate view classification of echocardiograms using deep learning. NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:6

    2018

  6. [16]

    Detection of diabetic retinopathy using a convolutional neural network

    Peng L, Gulshan V, Coram M, et al. Detection of diabetic retinopathy using a convolutional neural network. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2402-2410

    2016

  7. [17]

    Artificial intelligence in medicine

    Hamet P, Tremblay J. Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism. 2017;69S:S36-S40. 18. Yang G, Ye Q, Xia J. Unbox the black-box for the medical explainable AI via multi-modal and multi-centre data. Med Image Anal. 2022;75:102274

    2017

  8. [19]

    Towards efficient COVID-19 CT annotation: A benchmark for lung and infection segmentation

    Ma J, Wang Y, An X, et al. Towards efficient COVID-19 CT annotation: A benchmark for lung and infection segmentation. Med Image Anal. 2021;70:101918

    2021

  9. [20]

    An overview of deep learning in medical imaging focusing on MRI

    Lundervold AS, Lundervold A. An overview of deep learning in medical imaging focusing on MRI. Z Med Phys. 2019;29(2):102-127

    2019

  10. [21]

    What an artificial intelligence and machine learning can help healthcare systems respond to COVID-19

    Van der Schaar M, Alaa AM, Floto A, et al. What an artificial intelligence and machine learning can help healthcare systems respond to COVID-19. Mach Learn. 2021;110:1-14

    2021

  11. [22]

    Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Radiology: Opportunities, Challenges, Pitfalls, and Criteria for Success

    Thrall JH, Li X, Li Q, et al. Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Radiology: Opportunities, Challenges, Pitfalls, and Criteria for Success. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3 Pt B):504-508

    2018

  12. [23]

    Deep Learning in Medical Imaging: General Overview

    Lee JG, Jun S, Cho YW, et al. Deep Learning in Medical Imaging: General Overview. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(4):570-584

    2017

  13. [24]

    Min JK, Dunning A, Lin FY, et al. Age- and sex-related differences in all-cause mortality risk based on coronary computed tomography angiography findings: results from the CONFIRM (Coronary CT Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter) registry...

    2011

  14. [25]

    Evaluate the Malignancy of Pulmonary Nodules Using the 3D Deep Leaky Noisy-or Network

    Liao F, Liang M, Li Z, et al. Evaluate the Malignancy of Pulmonary Nodules Using the 3D Deep Leaky Noisy-or Network. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst. 2019;30(11):3484-3495

    2019

  15. [26]

    Deep learning-enabled medical computer vision

    Esteva A, Chou K, Yeung S, et al. Deep learning-enabled medical computer vision. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):5

    2021

  16. [27]

    Development and Validation of a Deep Learning System for Diabetic Retinopathy and Related Eye Diseases Using Retinal Images from Multiethnic Populations with Diabetes

    Ting DSW, Cheung CYL, Lim G, et al. Development and Validation of a Deep Learning System for Diabetic Retinopathy and Related Eye Diseases Using Retinal Images from Multiethnic Populations with Diabetes. JAMA. 2017;318(22):2211-2223

    2017

  17. [28]

    Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS One

    Weng SF, Reps J, Kai J, et al. Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0174944

    2017

  18. [29]

    Global Evolution of Research in Artificial Intelligence in Health and Medicine: A Bibliometric Study

    Tran BX, Vu GT, Ha GH, et al. Global Evolution of Research in Artificial Intelligence in Health and Medicine: A Bibliometric Study. J Clin Med. 2019;8(3):360

    2019

  19. [30]

    Deep neural nets as a method for quantitative structure–activity relationships

    Ma J, Sheridan RP, Liaw A, et al. Deep neural nets as a method for quantitative structure–activity relationships. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55(2):263-274

    2015

  20. [31]

    Machine learning for medical imaging

    Erickson BJ, Korfiatis P, Akkus Z, et al. Machine learning for medical imaging. Radiographics. 2017;37(2):505-515

    2017

  21. [32]

    An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation during sinus rhythm: a retrospective analysis of outcome prediction

    Attia ZI, Noseworthy PA, Lopez-Jimenez F, et al. An artificial intelligence-enabled ECG algorithm for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation during sinus rhythm: a retrospective analysis of outcome prediction. Lancet. 2019;394(10201):861-867

    2019

  22. [33]

    Big data and machine learning algorithms for health-care delivery

    Ngiam KY, Khor IW. Big data and machine learning algorithms for health-care delivery. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(5):e262-e273

    2019

  23. [34]

    Artificial intelligence and algorithmic bias: implications for health systems

    Panch T, Mattie H, Atun R. Artificial intelligence and algorithmic bias: implications for health systems. J Glob Health. 2019;9(2):020318

    2019

  24. [35]

    The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine

    He J, Baxter SL, Xu J, et al. The practical implementation of artificial intelligence technologies in medicine. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):30-36

    2019

  25. [36]

    Fastai: A layered API for deep learning

    Howard J, Gugger S. Fastai: A layered API for deep learning. Information. 2020;11(2):108. 37. Beam AL, Kohane IS. Big data and machine learning in health care. JAMA. 2018;319(13):1317-1318

    2020

  26. [38]

    Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence

    Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, et al. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):195

    2019

  27. [39]

    Machine learning and the profession of medicine

    Darcy AM, Louie AK, Roberts LW. Machine learning and the profession of medicine. JAMA. 2016;315(6):551-552

    2016

  28. [40]

    Predicting the Future — Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine

    Obermeyer Z, Emanuel EJ. Predicting the Future — Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(13):1216-1219

    2016

  29. [41]

    Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine

    Ching T, Himmelstein DS, Beaulieu-Jones BK, et al. Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine. J R Soc Interface. 2018;15(141):20170387

    2018

  30. [42]

    Machine learning and prediction in medicine — beyond the peak of inflated expectations

    Chen JH, Asch SM. Machine learning and prediction in medicine — beyond the peak of inflated expectations. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(26):2507-2509

    2017

  31. [43]

    Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential

    Raghupathi W, Raghupathi V. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Inf Sci Syst. 2014;2(1):3

    2014

  32. [44]

    The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare

    Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Health J. 2019;6(2):94-98

    2019

  33. [45]

    AI for medical imaging goes deep

    Ting DSW, Liu Y, Burlina P, et al. AI for medical imaging goes deep. Nat Med. 2018;24(5):539-540

    2018

  34. [46]

    A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Liu X, Faes L, Kale AU, et al. A comparison of deep learning performance against health-care professionals in detecting diseases from medical imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digit Health. 2019;1(6):e271-e297

    2019

  35. [47]

    The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications

    Bohr A, Nematzadeh K. The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications. Artif Intell Healthc. 2020;25-60

    2020

  36. [48]

    Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges

    Miotto R, Wang F, Wang S, et al. Deep learning for healthcare: review, opportunities and challenges. Brief Bioinform. 2018;19(6):1236-1246

    2018

  37. [49]

    Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer

    Ehteshami Bejnordi B, Veta M, Johannes van Diest P, et al. Diagnostic assessment of deep learning algorithms for detection of lymph node metastases in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 2017;318(22):2199-2210

    2017

  38. [50]

    Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future

    Jiang F, Jiang Y, Zhi H, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2017;2(4):230-243. View publication stats

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.