ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2024
Artificial intelligence-derived left ventricular strain in echocardiography in patients treated with chemotherapy.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-assisted left ventricular global longitudinal strain assessment in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a RESUS-AMI trial sub-analysis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Trial
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Ultrasound: Clinical Applications, Foundation Models, and the Path to Precision Cardiology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Deep Learning for Cardiac Wall Motion Analysis: A Review of Methods, Challenges, and Clinical Applications.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- The role of artificial intelligence in early detection and risk prediction of ischemic heart disease.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Reproducibility of echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular systolic function: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing artificial intelligence and clinician estimates.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence and the Expanding Universe of Cardio-Oncology: Beyond Detection Toward Prediction and Prevention of Therapy-Related Cardiotoxicity-A Comprehensive Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cancer-Therapy-Related Cardiac Dysfunction: Latest Advances in Prevention and Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is an echocardiographic measure to detect chemotherapy-related cardiovascular dysfunction. However, its limited availability and the needed expertise may restrict its generalization. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based GLS might overcome these challenges. Our aims are to explore the agreements between AI-based GLS and conventional GLS, and to assess whether the agreements were influenced by expertise levels, cardiac remodeling and cardiovascular diseases/risks. Echocardiographic images in the apical four-chamber view of left ventricle were retrospectively analyzed based on AI-based GLS in patients treated with chemotherapy, and correlation between AI-based GLS (Caas Qardia, Pie Medical Imaging) and conventional GLS (Vivid E9/VividE95, GE Healthcare) were assessed. The agreement between unexperienced physicians ("GLS beginner") and experienced echocardiographer were also assessed. Among 94 patients (mean age 69 ± 12 years, 73% female), mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 64 ± 6%, 14% of patients had left ventricular hypertrophy, and 21% had left atrial enlargement. Mean GLS was - 15.9 ± 3.4% and - 19.0 ± 3.7% for the AI and conventional method, respectively. There was a moderate correlation between these methods (rho = 0.74; p < 0.01), and bias was - 3.1% (95% limits of agreement: -8.1 to 2.0). The reproducibility between GLS beginner and an experienced echocardiographer was numerically better in the AI method than the conventional method (inter-observer agreement = 0.82 vs. 0.68). The agreements were consistent across abnormal cardiac structure and function categories (p-for-interaction > 0.10). In patients treated with chemotherapy. AI-based GLS was moderately correlated with conventional GLS and provided a numerically better reproducibility compared with conventional GLS, regardless of different levels of expertise.
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.