Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38965290›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Multicenter validation study for automated left ventricular ejection fraction assessment using a handheld ultrasound with artificial intelligence.

Nobuyuki Kagiyama, Yukio Abe, Kenya Kusunose, Nahoko Kato, Tomohiro Kaneko, Azusa Murata, Mitsuhiko Ota, Kentaro Shibayama, Masaki Izumo, Hiroyuki Watanabe

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Reliability of spectral Doppler in handheld ultrasonographic device.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nobuyuki KagiyamaDepartment of Cardiovascular Biology and Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Tokyo, 113-0021, Japan. kgnb_27_hot@yahoo.co.jp.
Yukio AbeDepartment of Cardiology, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Kenya KusunoseDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Nephrology, and Neurology, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa, Japan.
Nahoko KatoDepartment of Cardiology, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Urayasu, Japan.
Tomohiro KanekoDepartment of Cardiovascular Biology and Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Tokyo, 113-0021, Japan.
Azusa MurataDepartment of Cardiovascular Biology and Medicine, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Tokyo, 113-0021, Japan.
Mitsuhiko OtaDepartment of Cardiovascular Center, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Kentaro ShibayamaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tokyo Cardiovascular and Internal Medicine Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Masaki IzumoDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan.
Hiroyuki WatanabeDepartment of Cardiology, Tokyo Bay Urayasu Ichikawa Medical Center, Urayasu, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We sought to validate the ability of a novel handheld ultrasound device with an artificial intelligence program (AI-POCUS) that automatically assesses left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). AI-POCUS was used to prospectively scan 200 patients in two Japanese hospitals. Automatic LVEF by AI-POCUS was compared to the standard biplane disk method using high-end ultrasound machines. After excluding 18 patients due to infeasible images for AI-POCUS, 182 patients (63 ± 15 years old, 21% female) were analyzed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the LVEF by AI-POCUS and the standard methods was good (0.81, p < 0.001) without clinically meaningful systematic bias (mean bias -1.5%, p = 0.008, limits of agreement ± 15.0%). Reduced LVEF < 50% was detected with a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval 76%-91%) and specificity of 81% (71%-89%). Although the correlations between LV volumes by standard-echo and those by AI-POCUS were good (ICC > 0.80), AI-POCUS tended to underestimate LV volumes for larger LV (overall bias 42.1 mL for end-diastolic volume). These trends were mitigated with a newer version of the software tuned using increased data involving larger LVs, showing similar correlations (ICC > 0.85). In this real-world multicenter study, AI-POCUS showed accurate LVEF assessment, but careful attention might be necessary for volume assessment. The newer version, trained with larger and more heterogeneous data, demonstrated improved performance, underscoring the importance of big data accumulation in the field.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceStroke VolumeVentricular Function, LeftAgedEchocardiographyFemaleHeart VentriclesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesUltrasonographyVentricular Dysfunction, LeftArtificial intelligenceEchocardiographyHandheld ultrasound devicePoint-of-care ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID38965290
PMCPMC11224326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.