Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33755
Title: Artificial Intelligence for Coronary Artery Disease Prediction Using ECG and CCTA: A Systematic Review
Authors: Alshdaifat, Ahmad Ibrahim
Balachandran, Wamadeva
Hunaiti, Ziad
Keywords: artificial intelligence;coronary artery disease;deep learning;electrocardiogram;coronary computed tomography angiography;machine learning;systematic review;PROBAST
Issue Date: 13-Aug-2026
Publisher: MDPI
Citation: Alshdaifat, A.I., Balachandran, W. and Hunaiti, Z. (2026) 'Artificial Intelligence for Coronary Artery Disease Prediction Using ECG and CCTA: A Systematic Review', AI in Medicine, 1(3), 22, pp. 1–25. doi: 10.3390/aimed1030022.
Abstract: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide, highlighting the need for more reliable and efficient diagnostic tools beyond conventional methods. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), has shown strong potential for detecting obstructive CAD by learning complex patterns from electrocardiogram (ECG) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) data. This rapid systematic review assesses and compares the diagnostic performance and methodological quality of AI models built for CAD prediction using ECG and CCTA data. A systematic search following PRISMA-ScR guidelines was conducted for primary studies published between 2021 and 2025. Eleven studies were included, six using ECG data and five using CCTA data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PROBAST+AI tool. ECG-based models achieved AUCs of 0.72–0.961 and CCTA-based models showed slightly stronger top-end performance, with AUCs of 0.77–0.97. External validation was uncommon in both groups, applied in only 40% of CCTA studies and 33% of ECG studies, so neither modality demonstrated clearly greater validation maturity. Despite these strong results, PROBAST+AI assessment revealed a high risk of bias in 90.9% of the included studies, largely due to weaknesses in the analysis domain, including poor handling of missing data and the absence of model calibration reporting. AI models show strong diagnostic accuracy for CAD across both modalities, although external validation was limited and applied in a minority of studies. However, the widespread methodological bias means these tools should currently support clinical decision-making rather than replace standard diagnostic methods. Future studies should focus on prospective multicentre validation and the use of multimodal data.
Description: Data Availability Statement: No new data were created in this study. The data extracted from included studies are available within the article, in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5, or from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. This review was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H793Y.
Supplementary Materials are available online at: https://www.mdpi.com/3042-6707/1/3/22#app1-aimed-01-00022 .
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/33755
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/aimed1030022
Appears in Collections:Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).6.45 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons