ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2024
Detection of severe aortic stenosis by clinicians versus artificial intelligence: A retrospective clinical cohort study.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The impact of underdiagnosis and delay in care for patients with moderate and severe aortic stenosis: A real-world database cohort study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in the Clinical Recognition of Significant Aortic Stenosis.JACC. Advances · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many severe aortic stenosis (AS) cases are undetected and/or not considered for potentially life-saving treatment, with a persistent male-bias reported among those undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We evaluated the clinical value of a validated artificial intelligence automated alert system (AI-AAS) that detects severe AS from routine echocardiographic measurements. In a retrospective, clinical cohort of 21,749 adults investigated with transthoracic echocardiography at two tertiary-referral centres, we identified 4057 women (aged 61.6 ± 18.1 years) and 5132 men (60.8 ± 17.5 years) with native aortic valves. We firstly applied the AI-AAS to the cardiologists' reported echo measurements, to detect all AS cases, including guideline-defined severe AS. Two expert clinicians then independently reviewed the original clinical diagnosis/management based on the initial report. Initially, 218/9189 (2.4 %, 95%CI 2.1-2.7 %) severe AS cases were diagnosed. The AI-AAS subsequently increased this number by 158 (52 % women) to 376 cases (4.1 %, 95%CI 3.7-4.5 %) of severe guideline-defined AS. Overall, more women were under-diagnosed (92/169 [54.4 %] versus 80/207 [38.6 %] men - adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.21, 95%CI 0.10-0.45). Even when accounting for potential contraindications to valvular intervention, women were persistently less likely to be considered for valvular intervention (aOR 0.54, 95%CI 0.31-0.95) and/or underwent AVR (aOR 0.29, 95%CI 0.09-0.74). Our study suggests an AI-AAS application that is agnostic to gender, haemodynamic bias, symptoms, or clinical factors, provides an objective alert to severe forms of AS (including guideline-defined severe AS) following a routine echocardiogram, and has the potential to increase the number of people (especially women) directed towards more definitive treatment/specialist care.
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.