ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026
Automated assessment of right heart function by artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- "Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Evaluating Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis".Clinical cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Machine learning and Regression-Based models for prediction of postoperative atrial fibrillation following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Review
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
Background: Accurate assessment of right ventricular (RV) size and function is critical for managing cardiac diseases but is challenged by the limitations of traditional echocardiography. Artificial intelligence (AI) models offer potential for improving RV assessment, yet their diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for predicting RV size and function, synthesizing performance metrics and assessing evidence quality. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we searched 5 databases up to June 2025 using MeSH and Emtree terms for "Artificial Intelligence," "Right Ventricular Function," and "Right Ventricular Dysfunction." Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed quality using PROBAST+AI. Pooled estimates were calculated using STATA 18 with MIDAS and METADATA modules. Heterogeneity was explored via subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Results: From 25 studies, 18 provided data for meta-analysis, yielding a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.73-0.92), specificity of 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.72-0.88), and AUROC of 0.89 (95 % CI: 0.86-0.92). High heterogeneity (I² = 71.63 % for sensitivity, 73.51 % for specificity) was partially explained by algorithm type and study country. The GRADE assessment indicated moderate certainty of evidence due to heterogeneity and bias in 25 % of studies. Conclusion: AI models show promising diagnostic accuracy for RV assessment, but high heterogeneity and moderate evidence certainty necessitate cautious interpretation and further research.
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.