ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Automated Deep Learning Pipeline for Characterizing Left Ventricular Diastolic Function.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD) is most commonly evaluated by echocardiography. However, without a sole identifying metric, LVDD is assessed by a diagnostic algorithm relying on secondary characteristics that is laborious and has potential for interobserver variability. Methods: To characterize concordance in clinical evaluations of LVDD, we evaluated historical echocardiogram studies at two academic medical centers for variability between clinician text reports and assessment by 2016 American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) guidelines. We then developed a workflow of 8 artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on over 155,000 studies to automate assessment of LVDD. Model performance was evaluated on temporally distinct held-out test sets from two academic medical centers. Results: In a validation cohort of 955 studies from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, our AI workflow demonstrated 76.5% agreement and a weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.52 with ASE guideline assessment using human measurements. In contrast, the clinician report evaluation had 48.5% agreement and a weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.29 with ASE guidelines. In the Stanford Healthcare cohort of 1,572 studies, the AI workflow had 66.7% agreement and a weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.27 with ASE guidelines, while the clinician assessment had 32.7% agreement and a weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.06. Performance was consistent across patient subgroups stratified by sex, age, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and coronary artery disease. Conclusion: Clinicians are often inconsistent in evaluating LVDD. We developed an AI pipeline that automates the clinical workflow of grading LVDD, which can contribute to improved diagnosis of heart failure.
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.