ArticleESC heart failure2026
AI task-shifting for echocardiographic LVEF assessment in Singapore: an economic evaluation.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reinventing the echocardiography workflow: from manual quantification to artificial intelligence-driven comprehensive interpretation.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence applications in heart failure.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is crucial for heart failure (HF) diagnosis but requires skilled sonographers. Artificial intelligence-enabled point-of-care (AI-POC) devices may enable novices to assess LVEF, potentially reducing healthcare costs. We conducted a cost-minimization analysis comparing conventional sonographer-performed echocardiography versus novice-operated AI-POC devices.
methodsUsing a decision tree model, we compared the costs of diagnosing LVEF <50% in patients with suspected heart failure across two pathways: novice-operated AI-POC devices versus standard transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) performed by sonographers. The model incorporated LVEF <50% prevalence, diagnostic accuracy metrics, and comprehensive cost data for both approaches. We conducted a probabilistic sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of our findings under varying assumptions.
resultsThe AI-POC pathway demonstrated substantial cost savings, averaging S$1185 [US$1422] per patient compared to S$1403 [US$1684] for conventional TTE. In a single tertiary referral centre in Singapore, implementing AI-POC devices for LVEF assessment in 100 patients resulted in savings of S$21 669 [US$26 013]. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested a 99.9% probability that the AI-POC approach would be cost-saving compared to standard TTE.
conclusionsThis study provides economic evidence that task-shifting echocardiographic assessment of LVEF to novices using AI-POC devices is likely cost-saving compared to standard TTE. This task-shifting strategy offers a cost-saving alternative to conventional sonographer-led TTE.
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.