ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Automated Echocardiographic Detection of Congenital Heart Disease Using Artificial Intelligence.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Delayed or missed diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD) contributes to excess pediatric mortality worldwide. Echocardiography (echo) is central to diagnosing and triaging CHD, yet expert interpretation remains a scarce and maldistributed global resource. Artificial intelligence (AI) offers the potential to democratize diagnostics and extend expert-level interpretation beyond large academic centers, but its application in CHD remains underexplored. Methods: We developed EchoFocus-CHD, an AI-enabled model for automated detection of 12 critical and 8 non-critical CHD lesions, individually and as composites. The composite critical CHD outcome was the primary endpoint. The model expands on a multi-task, view-agnostic architecture (PanEcho) with a transformer encoder to improve focus on relevant echo views. The model was trained (80%) and tested (20%) on the first echo per patient from Boston Children's Hospital (BCH), with external validation on US and international studies from patients referred to BCH. Results: The internal and external cohorts included 3.4 million videos from 54,727 echos (median age at echo 7.1 [IQR, 0.2-15.0] years; 5.8% critical CHD; 23.6% non-critical CHD) and 167,484 videos from 3,356 echos (median age at echo 2.5 [IQR, 0.3-9.4] years; 29.4% critical CHD; 45.6% non-critical CHD), respectively. EchoFocus-CHD showed excellent internal ability to detect the composite critical CHD outcome (AUROC 0.94, LR+ 7.50, LR- 0.14) and individual critical lesions (AUROC 0.83-1.00), as well as composite non-critical CHD (AUROC 0.90, LR+ 5.00, LR- 0.23) and individual non-critical lesions (AUROC 0.70-0.96). Performance declined during external validation to detect critical CHD (AUROC 0.77), coinciding with greater expert disagreement on external cases (κ=0.72 versus 0.82 for internal cases). Explainability analyses demonstrated that the model prioritized the same clinically relevant views (parasternal long-axis, parasternal short-axis, and subxiphoid long-axis) across internal and external cohorts, while UMAP analysis revealed a domain shift between cohorts. Retraining on all available US patients attenuated domain shift, improving international critical CHD detection (AUROC 0.87) and calibration. Conclusions: EchoFocus-CHD shows promise for automated CHD detection and highlights the need to address domain shift for real-world deployment. By identifying high-risk CHD lesions, this approach could support triage, prioritize expert review, and optimize resource allocation, advancing more equitable global cardiovascular care.
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.