Trial reportBMC medical education2025
AI-enhanced guidance demonstrated improvement in novices' Apical-4-chamber and Apical-5-chamber views.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
- Artificial intelligence in breaking the learning curve for echocardiography: a secondary analysis of a multicentre trial.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Beyond Computer-Aided Diagnosis: Artificial Intelligence as a "Digital Mentor" for POCUS Image Acquisition and Quality Assurance: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Assistance Does Not Provide Immediate Benefit for Right Upper Quadrant Window Acquisition.Cureus · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Improves Apical Four-Chamber Window Quality in Experienced but Not Novice Users.Cureus · 2026Article
- AI-Enhanced POCUS in Emergency Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Transforming surgical ward rounds: constructivist pedagogy, structured models, and intelligent technologies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Handheld Echocardiography by Nonexpert Operators: A Narrative Review of Prospective Studies.Cureus · 2025Review
- Clinical obstacles to machine-learning POCUS adoption and system-wide AI implementation (The COMPASS-AI survey).The ultrasound journal · 2025Article
- Principles for Developing a Large-Scale Point-of-Care Ultrasound Education Program: Insights from a Tertiary University Medical Center in Israel.Perspectives on medical education · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionArtificial Intelligence (AI) modules might simplify the complexities of cardiac ultrasound (US) training by offering real-time, step-by-step guidance on probe manipulation for high-quality diagnostic imaging. This study investigates real-time AI-based guidance tool in facilitating cardiac US training and its impact on novice users' proficiency.
methodsThis independent, prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled participants who completed a six-hour cardiac US course, followed by a designated cardiac US proficiency exam. Both groups received in-person guided training using the same devices, with the AI-enhanced group receiving additional real-time AI feedback on probe navigation and image quality during both training and testing, while the non-AI group relied solely on the instructor's guidance.
resultsData were collected from 44 participants: 21 in the AI-enhanced group and 23 in the non-AI group. Improvement was observed in the assessment of the AI-enhanced group compared to the non-AI in acquiring the Apical-4-chamber and the Apical-5- chamber views [mean 88% (± SD 10%) vs. mean 76% (± SD 17%), respectively; p = 0.016]. On the other hand, a slower time to complete the echocardiography exam was observed by the AI-enhanced group [mean 401 s (± SD 51) vs. 348 s (± SD 81) respectively; p = 0.038]. DISCUSSION: The addition of real-time, AI-based feedback demonstrated benefits in the cardiac POCUS teaching process for the more challenging echocardiography four- and five- chamber views. It also has the potential to surpass challenges related to in-person POCUS training. Additional studies are required to explore the long-term effect of this training approach. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.