| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 7 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
PMcardio analyzes cardiac imaging data (echocardiography, CT, MRI, angiography) using deep learning models trained on large-scale annotated cardiovascular datasets to detect structural abnormalities, functional impairments, and disease patterns. The system generates structured diagnostic reports with confidence scores and anatomical measurements, integrating computer vision feature extraction with clinical decision logic to flag critical findings and quantify diagnostic certainty for clinician review.
Unique: Implements domain-specific deep learning models trained on large-scale annotated cardiovascular imaging datasets with confidence scoring and anatomical measurement extraction, rather than generic medical imaging analysis — architecture likely includes specialized CNN/transformer layers for cardiac structure recognition and quantification
vs alternatives: Focused specifically on cardiovascular pathology detection with integrated measurement extraction and confidence scoring, whereas generic medical AI platforms require custom configuration for cardiology workflows
PMcardio synthesizes imaging findings, clinical parameters, and patient history into structured risk assessments and treatment pathway recommendations using rule-based clinical logic and machine learning models trained on cardiovascular outcome data. The system generates evidence-based treatment suggestions (medical management, intervention timing, device therapy) with risk-benefit analysis to support shared decision-making between clinician and patient.
Unique: Integrates imaging-derived findings with clinical parameters and outcome prediction models to generate multi-pathway treatment recommendations with explicit risk-benefit analysis, rather than isolated risk scoring — architecture likely combines rule engines for guideline-based logic with ML models for outcome prediction
vs alternatives: Combines imaging analysis with treatment planning in a unified workflow, whereas standalone risk calculators require manual data entry and separate clinical judgment for pathway selection
PMcardio integrates with hospital Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) and electronic health records (EHR) via HL7/FHIR standards and DICOM protocols to automatically retrieve imaging studies, populate patient context, and route results back to clinician workflows. The system handles DICOM file ingestion, metadata extraction, and result delivery without requiring manual data transfer, minimizing workflow disruption and enabling seamless embedding into existing clinical processes.
Unique: Implements bidirectional PACS/EHR integration with automated study routing and result delivery, rather than standalone analysis requiring manual data transfer — architecture likely uses HL7/FHIR adapters and DICOM service class user (SCU) implementations to enable seamless clinical workflow embedding
vs alternatives: Eliminates manual imaging export/import steps by directly integrating with institutional PACS and EHR, whereas point solutions require clinicians to manually transfer files and re-enter data
PMcardio processes multiple cardiac imaging modalities (echocardiography, CT, MRI, angiography, nuclear imaging) in a single analysis session and correlates findings across modalities to provide comprehensive disease assessment. The system aligns anatomical landmarks across different imaging types, identifies discrepancies between modalities, and synthesizes multi-modal evidence into unified diagnostic conclusions, enabling clinicians to leverage complementary imaging strengths.
Unique: Implements cross-modal image registration and correlation logic to synthesize findings across echocardiography, CT, MRI, and angiography in unified analysis, rather than analyzing each modality independently — architecture likely uses deformable registration algorithms and multi-modal fusion networks to align anatomical landmarks
vs alternatives: Provides integrated multi-modal analysis in single workflow, whereas clinicians typically review each modality separately and manually correlate findings, introducing variability and inefficiency
PMcardio automatically detects cardiac anatomical landmarks (chamber boundaries, valve annuli, coronary ostia) and extracts quantitative measurements (chamber volumes, ejection fraction, wall thickness, stenosis severity) from imaging data using deep learning-based segmentation and landmark localization models. The system generates standardized measurement reports compatible with clinical reporting standards, reducing manual measurement burden and improving reproducibility.
Unique: Implements deep learning-based anatomical segmentation and landmark detection to automatically extract standardized cardiac measurements, rather than requiring manual tracing or semi-automated tools — architecture likely uses U-Net or transformer-based segmentation networks with post-processing for anatomical constraint enforcement
vs alternatives: Fully automated measurement extraction reduces manual effort and improves reproducibility compared to semi-automated tools requiring clinician interaction for each measurement
PMcardio generates standardized diagnostic reports using structured templates aligned with clinical guidelines (ACC/AHA, ESC) and provides inter-observer agreement metrics (kappa, ICC) comparing AI findings with clinician interpretations. The system tracks diagnostic consistency across multiple readers and imaging sessions, enabling quality assurance programs to identify sources of variability and standardize interpretation protocols.
Unique: Implements structured reporting with inter-observer agreement metrics to quantify and reduce diagnostic variability, rather than providing isolated AI predictions — architecture likely includes guideline-aligned reporting templates and statistical agreement calculation modules
vs alternatives: Provides systematic approach to identifying and reducing diagnostic variability through standardized templates and agreement metrics, whereas traditional workflows rely on individual clinician consistency without quantitative feedback
PMcardio implements a freemium business model offering basic AI-assisted diagnostic capabilities (single-modality analysis, standard measurements, basic risk scoring) in free tier, with advanced features (multi-modality analysis, advanced risk calculators, enterprise integration, priority support) restricted to paid tiers. The system uses feature flags and license-based access control to gate functionality, enabling cost-effective entry for smaller practices while monetizing advanced capabilities for larger institutions.
Unique: Implements freemium tiered access with feature gating to balance accessibility for small practices with revenue generation from enterprise features, rather than single-tier pricing — architecture likely uses license-based access control and feature flag systems to manage capability availability
vs alternatives: Lowers adoption barriers for small practices through free tier while capturing revenue from advanced features, whereas enterprise-only pricing excludes smaller users entirely
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to perform chained mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparisons) across both structured tables and unstructured text extracted from SEC filings. The dataset provides ground-truth question-answer pairs where answers require synthesizing data from multiple locations within earnings reports and applying sequential arithmetic operations, testing whether models can decompose complex financial queries into discrete computational steps.
Unique: Combines real SEC filing documents (not synthetic) with crowdsourced questions requiring multi-step arithmetic, creating a hybrid dataset that tests both domain knowledge extraction and quantitative reasoning in a single evaluation task. Unlike generic math word problems, answers require locating figures within 10+ page documents first.
vs alternatives: More challenging than DROP or SVAMP because it requires financial domain knowledge AND document retrieval before arithmetic, whereas generic math benchmarks assume figures are already extracted
Assesses whether AI systems understand financial terminology, accounting concepts, and domain-specific metrics by requiring them to answer questions about real earnings reports from S&P 500 companies. The dataset tests recognition of financial line items (revenue, COGS, operating expenses, net income), ability to distinguish between different financial statements (income statement vs balance sheet), and understanding of financial ratios and metrics without explicit instruction on their definitions.
Unique: Uses authentic SEC filings rather than synthetic financial data, exposing models to real-world accounting variations, footnote complexity, and the actual structure of professional financial documents. This tests transfer learning from general text to specialized domain without domain-specific pretraining.
vs alternatives: More authentic than synthetic financial QA datasets because it uses real earnings reports with their inherent complexity, but narrower than general financial knowledge benchmarks because it focuses only on historical data interpretation
FinQA scores higher at 60/100 vs PMcardio at 43/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Enables evaluation of AI systems' ability to extract numerical data from both structured HTML/text tables and unstructured prose within the same document, then reason over the extracted values. The dataset contains questions where relevant data appears in different formats — some figures are in formatted tables with clear row/column headers, while others are embedded in narrative text or footnotes — requiring robust parsing and entity linking before computation can occur.
Unique: Combines structured table data with unstructured narrative in the same evaluation, forcing systems to handle format heterogeneity and resolve references across different data representations. Most table QA datasets use clean, isolated tables; this tests real-world document complexity.
vs alternatives: More realistic than isolated table QA benchmarks (like SQA or WikiTableQuestions) because it requires handling narrative context and format mixing, but simpler than full document understanding because tables are already in text format (no OCR needed)
Provides a curated, crowdsourced-annotated dataset of 8,281 question-answer pairs with multi-step reasoning requirements, enabling systematic evaluation of AI systems on financial numerical reasoning. The dataset includes quality control mechanisms through crowdworker annotation, answer validation against ground truth, and coverage across diverse financial metrics and company types within the S&P 500, creating a reproducible evaluation standard for the financial AI community.
Unique: Provides a publicly available, reproducible benchmark specifically designed for financial numerical reasoning with real SEC filings, enabling standardized comparison across different financial AI systems. Most financial datasets are proprietary or synthetic; this is open-source and authentic.
vs alternatives: More specialized and challenging than generic QA benchmarks (SQuAD, MRQA) because it requires financial domain knowledge and multi-step arithmetic, but narrower in scope than comprehensive financial understanding benchmarks because it focuses only on numerical reasoning
Assesses AI systems' ability to perform multi-hop reasoning by requiring them to locate and combine information from different sections of earnings reports. Questions may require finding a figure in the income statement, then locating a related metric in the balance sheet, then performing arithmetic across both — testing whether models can maintain context across document boundaries and understand relationships between different financial statement sections.
Unique: Embeds multi-hop reasoning requirements within authentic financial documents where hops correspond to real relationships between financial statement sections, rather than synthetic reasoning chains. This tests whether models understand domain structure, not just generic multi-hop patterns.
vs alternatives: More realistic than synthetic multi-hop datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA) because reasoning hops follow actual financial relationships, but less controlled because document structure varies and reasoning paths are implicit rather than explicitly annotated
Enables evaluation of whether AI systems can identify which arithmetic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, comparison) are required to answer financial questions, then execute them correctly. The dataset implicitly tests operation selection — a question asking 'what is the profit margin' requires division (net income / revenue), while 'what is total assets' requires addition — forcing models to understand financial semantics before applying math.
Unique: Embeds arithmetic operation selection within financial domain context, requiring models to understand that 'margin' semantically maps to division and 'total' maps to addition. This tests semantic grounding of operations, not just arithmetic execution.
vs alternatives: More semantically grounded than generic math word problem datasets because operation selection is implicit in financial terminology, but less explicit than datasets with annotated operation types because operations must be inferred
Provides evaluation capability for AI systems to compare financial metrics across multiple S&P 500 companies or aggregate metrics across different time periods within the same company's earnings reports. While individual questions reference single documents, the dataset structure enables evaluation of systems that can retrieve and compare relevant companies, requiring understanding of which metrics are comparable across entities and how to normalize for company size or accounting differences.
Unique: Provides a foundation for evaluating cross-company financial comparison by including diverse S&P 500 companies with different business models and scales, enabling assessment of whether systems can normalize and compare metrics appropriately. Most financial QA datasets focus on single-document questions.
vs alternatives: Enables cross-company evaluation unlike single-document QA datasets, but requires external retrieval and comparison logic because the dataset itself contains only single-document questions