Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 May 26.
Published in final edited form as: Heart. 2022 May 25;108(12):909–916. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2021-319769

Table 2.

Quality appraisal results by cardiac disease focus

Clearly defined purpose Number of patients specified Patient demographic information reported Number of documents specified Detailed description of NLP approach Parameterization conducted Inclusion of comparative evaluation Detailed description of comparative evaluation design Justification for evaluation design and metrics Evaluation metrics reported Statistical treatment of results (e.g., confidence tests) Discussion of model costs (time, resources) and explainability Availability of code and datasets for reproducibility
Coronary Artery Disease
Esteban et al, 20179
Hu et al, 201613
Owlia et al, 201910
Safarova et al, 201611
Shah et al, 201912
Toerper et al, 201614
Electrophysiology
Bean et al, 201916
Hu et al, 201921
Moon et al, 201920
Moon et al, 202019
Rosier et al, 201618
Shah et al, 2020a17
Shah et al, 2020b15
General cardiology
Viani et al, 201922
Heart Failure
Alnazzawi et al, 201623
Bielinski et al, 201524
Eggerth et al, 202036
Evans et al, 201630
Garvin et al, 201833
Jonnalagadda et al, 201734
Kaspar et al, 201825
Leiter et al, 202037
Liu et al, 201931
Mahajan et al, 201932
Patel et al, 201826
Topaz et al, 201735
Wagholikar et al, 201827
Wang et al, 201528
Zhang et al, 201829
Imaging
Adekkanattu et al, 201938
Nath et al, 201639
Patterson et al, 201742
Shi et al, 201540
Valtchinov et al, 202043
Xie et al, 201741
Zheng et al, 202044
Valvular Disease
Galper et al, 201845