ArticleCureus2026
Artificial Intelligence Assistance Does Not Provide Immediate Benefit for Right Upper Quadrant Window Acquisition.
Article in Cureus, 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
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
introductionMany point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) machines now incorporate artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted acquisition features; however, their usefulness for the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) exam remains poorly defined. This repeated-measures study aimed to determine the immediate combined effect of AI auto-labeling and auto-grading on acquisition time and image quality of the right upper quadrant (RUQ) FAST exam window, as obtained by both novice and experienced emergency medicine (EM) physician trainees. Methods: Fourteen novices with limited POCUS training during medical school and 10 second- and third-year EM residents recorded RUQ windows with and without AI assistance on three standardized patients in randomized order. Acquisition time (in seconds) was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. A chi-square analysis was used to compare the proportion of recordings meeting each of the three image quality criteria: visibility of all essential structures, correct image plane, and proper probe orientation.
resultsThe median (interquartile range) acquisition time was significantly longer with AI assistance for both novice trainees (85 (91) vs 53 (59) seconds; p < 0.01) and experienced trainees (44 (29) vs 28 (21) seconds; p < 0.01). All RUQ image quality criteria were significantly more likely to be met by experienced trainees than by novices. No significant differences in image quality were observed with versus without AI assistance within either group.
conclusionThe immediate effect of AI auto-labeling and auto-grading was an increase in acquisition time among both novice and experienced physician trainees obtaining RUQ FAST exam windows. AI assistance was not associated with an immediate improvement in image quality among either group. These findings suggest that such AI features are unlikely to aid physician trainees in acquiring RUQ FAST exam windows during isolated attempts.
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.