ArticleCardiovascular ultrasound2025
Performance of a point-of-care ultrasound platform for artificial intelligence-enabled assessment of pulmonary B-lines.
Article in Cardiovascular ultrasound, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to the Editor: Artificial intelligence in nephrology point-of-care ultrasonography - opportunities, limitations, and future directions.World journal of nephrology · 2026Article
- AI-Enhanced POCUS in Emergency Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Unveiling Heart Failure: Gender-Specific Insights and Innovations in Women's Cardiac Health.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- Ultrasound in cardiovascular care: a perspective on preventive, diagnostic, and monitoring applications.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) platforms has rapidly increased. The number of B-lines present on lung ultrasound (LUS) serve as a useful tool for the assessment of pulmonary congestion. Interpretation, however, requires experience and therefore AI automation has been pursued. This study aimed to test the agreement between the AI software embedded in a major vendor POCUS system and visual expert assessment.
methodsThis single-center prospective study included 55 patients hospitalized for various respiratory symptoms, predominantly acutely decompensated heart failure. A 12-zone protocol was used. Two experts in LUS independently categorized B-lines into 0, 1-2, 3-4, and ≥ 5. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine agreement.
resultsA total of 672 LUS zones were obtained, with 584 (87%) eligible for analysis. Compared with expert reviewers, the AI significantly overcounted number of B-lines per patient (23.5 vs. 2.8, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of zones with > 5 B-lines was found by the AI than by the reviewers (38% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). The ICC between the AI and reviewers was 0.28 for the total sum of B-lines and 0.37 for the zone-by-zone method. The interreviewer agreement was excellent, with ICCs of 0.92 and 0.91, respectively.
conclusionThis study demonstrated excellent interrater reliability of B-line counts from experts but poor agreement with the AI software embedded in a major vendor system, primarily due to overcounting. Our findings indicate that further development is needed to increase the accuracy of AI tools in LUS.
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.