ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2023
Comparison of pulmonary congestion severity using artificial intelligence-assisted scoring versus clinical experts: A secondary analysis of BLUSHED-AHF.
Article in European journal of heart failure, 2023. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prognostic value of improving congestion on lung ultrasound during treatment for acute heart failure differs based on patient characteristics at admission.Journal of cardiology · 2024Trial
- Advances in Congestion Assessment in Decompensated Heart Failure.Cardiac failure review · 2026Review
- Clinical obstacles to machine-learning POCUS adoption and system-wide AI implementation (The COMPASS-AI survey).The ultrasound journal · 2025Article
- The diagnostic performance of automatic B-lines detection for evaluating pulmonary edema in the emergency department among novice point-of-care ultrasound practitioners.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
- Performance of a point-of-care ultrasound platform for artificial intelligence-enabled assessment of pulmonary B-lines.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2025Article
- Ultrasound imaging of congestion in heart failure: a narrative review.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- 2024 update in heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- A machine learning-based lung ultrasound algorithm for the diagnosis of acute heart failure.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Obesity and 1-year all-cause survival of adult intensive care patients with heart failure: data from the MIMIC-IV.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2024Article
- New perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence in the ultrasound evaluation of lung diseases.Journal of ultrasound · 2024Article
- Prognostic Significance of Lung Ultrasound for Heart Failure Patient Management in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aimAcute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is the leading cause of cardiovascular hospitalizations in the United States. Detecting B-lines through lung ultrasound (LUS) can enhance clinicians' prognostic and diagnostic capabilities. Artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-based automated guidance systems may allow novice users to apply LUS to clinical care. We investigated whether an AI/ML automated LUS congestion score correlates with expert's interpretations of B-line quantification from an external patient dataset. METHODS AND
resultsThis was a secondary analysis from the BLUSHED-AHF study which investigated the effect of LUS-guided therapy on patients with ADHF. In BLUSHED-AHF, LUS was performed and B-lines were quantified by ultrasound operators. Two experts then separately quantified the number of B-lines per ultrasound video clip recorded. Here, an AI/ML-based lung congestion score (LCS) was calculated for all LUS clips from BLUSHED-AHF. Spearman correlation was computed between LCS and counts from each of the original three raters. A total of 3858 LUS clips were analysed on 130 patients. The LCS demonstrated good agreement with the two experts' B-line quantification score (r = 0.894, 0.882). Both experts' B-line quantification scores had significantly better agreement with the LCS than they did with the ultrasound operator's score (p < 0.005, p < 0.001).
conclusionArtificial intelligence/machine learning-based LCS correlated with expert-level B-line quantification. Future studies are needed to determine whether automated tools may assist novice users in LUS interpretation.
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.