Artificial intelligence for individualized treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Artificial intelligence for individualized treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.
Item: Artificial intelligence for individualized treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Deisenhofer I, Albenque JP, Busch S, Gitenay E, Mountantonakis SE, Roux A, Horvilleur J, Bakouboula B, Oza S, Abbey S, Theodore G, Lepillier A, Guyomar Y, Bessiere F, Jan Smit J, Mohr Durdez T, Milpied P, Appetiti A, Guerrero D, De Potter T, De Chillou C, Goldbarg S, Verma A, Hummel JD, TAILORED-AF Investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 1.25★ (Critical), 0 critical, 2 high issues for “Artificial intelligence for individualized treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

1.25 / 5

Critical — serious problems across many checks

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×6−3★
ClaimsEfficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Problems surfaced4 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions2

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Efficacy rests on an unvalidated surrogate endpointAssessed
Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted, rigorously reported randomized controlled trial with strong methodology, clear ethical approvals, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement and lack of code sharing, which limits reproducibility.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on every status; no divergence to reconcile. The statistics verification recomputed 12 tests (all consistent) but covers only a subset of reported analyses; the remaining statistics are unverified. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references.

9 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Premise concern: surrogate not validated for clinical benefit.

Recomputed 11 tests: 11 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 11 via agent-written checks.

6 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites prior studies on PVI and 'PVI plus' strategies, acknowledges their limitations, and explains the need for objective, reproducible electrogram detection. The rationale linking AI-based detection of spatio-temporal dispersion to improved outcomes is clearly stated. Limitations of prior research are addressed by the AI approach.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with adequate citation of prior work and a logical rationale for the study.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, paragraph 2]

“Previous studies investigating ‘PVI plus’ ablation methods, such as PVI plus standardized anatomically defined atrial areas (for instance, the posterior wall of the left atrium) or PVI plus targeting magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected areas of atrial fibrosis, have failed to demonstrate a clear advantage over a more comprehensive ablation strategy.”

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 3]

“A key challenge in incorporating electrogram-based ablation strategies into larger trials has been the need to ensure objectivity, consistency, and most importantly, reproducibility in the detection and adjudication of intracardiac electrograms across different physicians and centers.”