ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Deep learning-based multi-view echocardiographic framework for comprehensive diagnosis of pericardial disease.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reinventing the echocardiography workflow: from manual quantification to artificial intelligence-driven comprehensive interpretation.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Pericardial disease spans a wide spectrum from small effusions to life-threatening tamponade or constriction. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the main diagnostic tool, but its interpretation is limited by operator dependence and incomplete functional assessment. Existing deep learning (DL) models focus mainly on effusion detection, lacking broader evaluation. Methods and results: We developed a DL-based framework that performs sequential assessment of pericardial disease: (i) morphological features, including effusion amount (normal/small/moderate/large) and pericardial thickening/adhesion (yes/no), from five B-mode views, and (ii) haemodynamic significance (yes/no), incorporating Doppler and inferior vena cava measurements. The developmental dataset comprises 2253 TTEs from multiple Korean institutions (225 for internal testing), and the independent external test set consists of 274 TTEs. In the internal test set, diagnostic accuracy was 81.8-97.3% for effusion, 91.6% for thickening/adhesion, and 86.2% for haemodynamic significance. External test set accuracy was 80.3-94.2%, 94.5%, and 85.5%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating curves for the three tasks were 0.92-0.99, 0.90, and 0.79 internally, and 0.95-0.98, 0.85, and 0.76 externally. Sensitivity for thickening/adhesion and haemodynamic significance improved from 66.7% to 77.3%, and 68.8% to 80.8%, respectively, when poor image quality were excluded. Similar performance gains were observed in subgroups with complete target views and a higher number of available video clips. Conclusion: This study presents the first DL-based TTE model for broader pericardial disease evaluation, integrating morphological with supportive functional assessments. The proposed framework demonstrated strong generalizability and aligned with the real-world diagnostic workflow. However, caution is warranted when interpreting results under suboptimal imaging conditions.
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.