ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Value of clinical review for AI-guided deep vein thrombosis diagnosis with ultrasound imaging by non-expert operators.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Point-of-Care Ultrasound: Domains, Barriers and a Framework for Future Development.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Quantitative Compression Ultrasound via a Force-Area Digital Twin for Mechanistic Assessment of Venous Thrombosis.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a predictive risk model for post-stroke deep vein thrombosis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2026Article
- Stroke-point-of-care ultrasound: a new holistic approach to bedside evaluation in stroke patients using ultrasound.European stroke journal · 2026Review
- Article
- ThrombUS+ Project: Toward Wearable Continuous Point-of-Care Monitoring for Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Lower Limb.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Feasibility and clinical value of nurse-led point-of-care ultrasound screening for prethrombotic state in postoperative cardiac ICU patients: a cross-sectional study.The ultrasound journal · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence guided imaging as a tool to fill gaps in health care delivery.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Limited echocardiogram acquisition by novice clinicians aided with deep learning: A randomized controlled trial.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
- Smart Thrombosis Care: The Rise of Closed-Loop Diagnosis-to-Treatment Nano Systems.International journal of nanomedicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) carries high morbidity, mortality, and costs globally. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) image acquisition by non-ultrasound-trained providers, supported by an AI-based guidance and remote image review system, is believed to improve the timeliness and cost-effectiveness of diagnosis. We examine a database of 381 patients with suspected DVT who underwent an AI-guided ultrasound scan by a non-ultrasound-trained nurse and an expert sonographer-performed standard compression ultrasound scan. Each AI-guided scan was reviewed remotely by blinded radiologists or blinded independent POCUS-certified American Emergency Medicine (EM) physicians. Remote reviewer and standard scan diagnoses were compared. The primary endpoint is AI-guidance system sensitivity with clinician review; secondary endpoints include specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, image quality, inter-observer image quality, and vein compressibility agreement. Data was analysed through the bootstrapping method, bootstrapping with a second reader for each scan, and a majority voting system. Eighty percent (n = 304) of scans were of sufficient diagnostic quality. Radiologist reviewer sensitivity ranged from 90%-95%, specificity from 74%-84%, NPV from 98%-99%, PPV from 30%-42%, and potential expert-led ultrasound scans avoided from 39%-50%. Inter-observer agreement for image quality was 0.15 and for compressibility 0.61. EM reviewer sensitivity ranged from 95%-98%, specificity from 97%-100%, NPV was 99%, PPV from 81%-100%, and potential expert-led ultrasound scans avoided from 29%-38%. Inter-observer agreement for image quality was 0.59 and for compressibility 0.67. Diagnosing lower extremity DVT through AI-guided image acquisition with clinician review is feasible. Performance is influenced by reviewer expertise. We find potential positive impacts on health economics, including safely avoiding expert-led ultrasound scans.
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.