ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2022
Artificial intelligence (AI) versus expert: A comparison of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI) assessment between ICU doctors and an AI tool.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-enhanced guidance demonstrated improvement in novices' Apical-4-chamber and Apical-5-chamber views.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Computer modeling to improve measurement of stroke volume with echocardiography.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2026Observational
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI-Enhanced POCUS in Emergency Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- FUTURE-AI: international consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Key Concepts in Machine Learning and Clinical Applications in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Comparison of veterinarians and a deep learning tool in the diagnosis of equine ophthalmic diseases.Equine veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Accuracy and Efficacy of Artificial Intelligence-Derived Automatic Measurements of Transthoracic Echocardiography in Routine Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Ultrasonographic Applications of Novel Technologies and Artificial Intelligence in Critically Ill Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) versus POCUS Expert: A Validation Study of Three Automatic AI-Based, Real-Time, Hemodynamic Echocardiographic Assessment Tools.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI) versus expert: A comparison of left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI) assessment between ICU doctors and an AI tool.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe application of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) in medical education is a relatively new course. There are still great differences in the existence, quantity, provision, and depth of bedside ultrasound education. The left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI) has been successfully used in several studies as a parameter for hemodynamic management of critically ill patients, especially in the evaluation of fluid responsiveness. While LVOT-VTI has been broadly used, valuable applications using artificial intelligence (AI) in PoCUS is still limited. We aimed to identify the degree of correlation between auto LVOT-VTI and the manual LVOT-VTI acquired by PoCUS trained ICU doctors.
methodsAmong the 58 ICU doctors who attended PoCUS training from 1 September 2019 to 30 November 2020, 46 ICU doctors who trained for more than 3 months were enrolled. At the end of PoCUS training, each of the enrolled ICU doctors acquired echocardiography parameters of a new ICU patient in 2 h after new patient was admitted. One of the two bedside expert sonographers would take standard echocardiogram of new ICU patients within 24 h. For ICU doctors, manual LVOT-VTI was obtained for reference and auto LVOT-VTI was calculated instantly by using an AI software tool. Based on the image quality of the auto LVOT-VTI, ICU patients was separated into ideal group (n = 31) and average group (n = 15).
resultsLeft ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDd, p = 0.1028), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, p = 0.3251), left atrial dimension (LA-d, p = 0.0962), left ventricular E/A ratio (p = 0.160), left ventricular wall motion (p = 0.317) and pericardial effusion (p = 1) had no significant difference between trained ICU doctors and expert sonographer. ICU patients in average group had greater sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (7.33 ± 1.58 vs. 4.09 ± 0.57, p = 0.022) and lactic acid (3.67 ± 0.86 mmol/L vs. 1.46 ± 0.12 mmol/L, p = 0.0009) with greater value of LVEDd (51.93 ± 1.07 vs. 47.57 ± 0.89, p = 0.0053), LA-d (39.06 ± 1.47 vs. 35.22 ± 0.98, p = 0.0334) and percentage of decreased wall motion (p = 0.0166) than ideal group. There were no significant differences of δLVOT-VTI (|manual LVOT-VTI - auto LVOT-VTI|/manual VTI*100%) between the two groups (8.8% ± 1.3% vs. 10% ± 2%, p = 0.6517). Statistically, significant correlations between manual LVOT-VTI and auto LVOT-VTI were present in the ideal group (R
conclusionsICU doctors could achieve the satisfied level of expertise as expert sonographers after 3 months of PoCUS training. Nearly two thirds of the enrolled ICU doctors could obtain the ideal view and one third of them could acquire the average view. ICU patients with higher SOFA scores and lactic acid were less likely to acquire the ideal view. Manual and auto LVOT-VTI had statistically significant agreement in both ideal and average groups. Auto LVOT-VTI in ideal view was more relevant with the manual LVOT-VTI than the average view. AI might provide real-time guidance among novice operators who lack expertise to acquire the ideal standard view.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.