ArticleEcho research and practice2024
Validation of machine learning models for estimation of left ventricular ejection fraction on point-of-care ultrasound: insights on features that impact performance.
Article in Echo research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A view-flexible deep learning framework for automated analysis of 2D echocardiography.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- Contemporary applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in echocardiography.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2025Review
- Leveraging Comprehensive Echo Data to Power Artificial Intelligence Models for Handheld Cardiac Ultrasound.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) algorithms can accurately estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from echocardiography, but their performance on cardiac point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is not well understood.
objectivesWe evaluate the performance of an ML model for estimation of LVEF on cardiac POCUS compared with Level III echocardiographers' interpretation and formal echo reported LVEF.
methodsClinicians at a tertiary care heart failure clinic prospectively scanned 138 participants using hand-carried devices. Video data were analyzed offline by an ML model for LVEF. We compared the ML model's performance with Level III echocardiographers' interpretation and echo reported LVEF.
resultsThere were 138 participants scanned, yielding 1257 videos. The ML model generated LVEF predictions on 341 videos. We observed a good intraclass correlation (ICC) between the ML model's predictions and the reference standards (ICC = 0.77-0.84). When comparing LVEF estimates for randomized single POCUS videos, the ICC between the ML model and Level III echocardiographers' estimates was 0.772, and it was 0.778 for videos where quantitative LVEF was feasible. When the Level III echocardiographer reviewed all POCUS videos for a participant, the ICC improved to 0.794 and 0.843 when only accounting for studies that could be segmented. The ML model's LVEF estimates also correlated well with LVEF derived from formal echocardiogram reports (ICC = 0.798).
conclusionOur results suggest that clinician-driven cardiac POCUS produces ML model LVEF estimates that correlate well with expert interpretation and echo reported LVEF.
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.