ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024
Automated Evaluation for Pericardial Effusion and Cardiac Tamponade with Echocardiographic Artificial Intelligence.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large-scale human genomic resources drive innovations toward forensic intelligent source attribution and precision identification.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Timely and accurate detection of pericardial effusion and assessment cardiac tamponade remain challenging and highly operator dependent. Objectives: Artificial intelligence has advanced many echocardiographic assessments, and we aimed to develop and validate a deep learning model to automate the assessment of pericardial effusion severity and cardiac tamponade from echocardiogram videos. Methods: We developed a deep learning model (EchoNet-Pericardium) using temporal-spatial convolutional neural networks to automate pericardial effusion severity grading and tamponade detection from echocardiography videos. The model was trained using a retrospective dataset of 1,427,660 videos from 85,380 echocardiograms at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (CSMC) to predict PE severity and cardiac tamponade across individual echocardiographic views and an ensemble approach combining predictions from five standard views. External validation was performed on 33,310 videos from 1,806 echocardiograms from Stanford Healthcare (SHC). Results: In the held out CSMC test set, EchoNet-Pericardium achieved an AUC of 0.900 (95% CI: 0.884-0.916) for detecting moderate or larger pericardial effusion, 0.942 (95% CI: 0.917-0.964) for large pericardial effusion, and 0.955 (95% CI: 0.939-0.968) for cardiac tamponade. In the SHC external validation cohort, the model achieved AUCs of 0.869 (95% CI: 0.794-0.933) for moderate or larger pericardial effusion, 0.959 (95% CI: 0.945-0.972) for large pericardial effusion, and 0.966 (95% CI: 0.906-0.995) for cardiac tamponade. Subgroup analysis demonstrated consistent performance across ages, sexes, left ventricular ejection fraction, and atrial fibrillation statuses. Conclusions: Our deep learning-based framework accurately grades pericardial effusion severity and detects cardiac tamponade from echocardiograms, demonstrating consistent performance and generalizability across different cohorts. This automated tool has the potential to enhance clinical decision-making by reducing operator dependence and expediting diagnosis.
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.