Evidence Hub

A clinically grounded taxonomy and systematic review of artificial intelligence for cardiovascular diagnosis: From machine learning to multimodal and agentic systems

Rezaei Z, Amini MA, Banad YM

Computers in biology and medicine, 2026

Abstract

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide, creating an urgent need for accurate, trustworthy, and clinically deployable artificial intelligence (AI) systems capable of supporting complex diagnostic decision-making. Although AI has advanced considerably in cardiovascular diagnosis, existing evidence remains fragmented across algorithms, data modalities, and isolated application domains, limiting a comprehensive understanding of clinically integrated AI systems. This study presents a PRISMA 2020-guided systematic review and proposes a clinically grounded six-layer taxonomy that organizes cardiovascular AI according to diagnostic objectives, data modalities, modeling paradigms, data integration complexity, interpretability and trustworthiness, and deployment maturity. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and ScienceDirect identified 226 records, of which 76 primary empirical studies met the predefined eligibility criteria and were included in the comparative evidence synthesis. The review demonstrates the evolution of cardiovascular AI from conventional machine learning applied to structured clinical data toward deep learning for physiological signals and medical imaging, followed by multimodal AI systems integrating heterogeneous clinical information. Comparative synthesis across the proposed taxonomy highlights substantial progress in predictive performance while revealing persistent challenges related to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free