ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Automated generation of echocardiography reports using artificial intelligence: a novel approach to streamlining cardiovascular diagnostics.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. 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.
- Reinventing the echocardiography workflow: from manual quantification to artificial intelligence-driven comprehensive interpretation.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Cardiology-Chat: A Multi-LLMs Powered System for Cardiac Diagnostic Reasoning and Clinical Support.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2026Article
- Current State of Artificial Intelligence in Assessing Cardiac Function.Current cardiology reports · 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
Accurate interpretation of echocardiography measurements is essential for diagnosing cardiovascular diseases and guiding clinical management. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT presents a novel opportunity to automate the generation of echocardiography reports and provide clinical recommendations. This study aimed to evaluate the ability of an LLM (ChatGPT) to 1) generate comprehensive echocardiography reports based solely on provided echocardiographic measurements, and when enriched with clinical information 2) formulate accurate diagnoses, along with appropriate recommendations for further tests, treatment, and follow-up. Echocardiographic data from n = 13 fictional cases (Group 1) and n = 8 clinical cases (Group 2) were input into the LLM. The model's outputs were compared against standard clinical assessments conducted by experienced cardiologists. Using a dedicated scoring system, the LLM's performance was evaluated and stratified based on its accuracy in report generation, diagnostic precision, and the appropriateness of its recommendations. Patterns, frequency and examples of misinterpretations by LLM were analysed. Across all cases, mean total score was 6.86 (SD = 1.12). Group 1 had a mean total score of 6.54 (SD = 1.13) and accuracy of 3.92 (SD = 0.86), while Group 2 scored 7.38 (SD = 0.92) and 4.38 (SD = 0.92), respectively. Recommendations were 2.62 (SD = 0.51) for Group 1 and 3.00 (SD = 0.00) for Group 2, with no significant differences (p = 0.096). Fully acceptable reports were 85.7%, borderline acceptable 14.3%, and none were not acceptable. Of 299 parameters, 5.3% were misinterpreted. The LLM demonstrated a high level of accuracy in generating detailed echocardiography reports, mostly correctly identifying normal and abnormal findings, and making accurate diagnoses across a range of cardiovascular conditions. ChatGPT, as an LLM, shows significant potential in automating the interpretation of echocardiographic data, offering accurate diagnostic insights and clinical recommendations. These findings suggest that LLMs could serve as valuable tools in clinical practice, assisting and streamlining clinical workflow.
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.