ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Comparison of the Expert Guidelines With Artificial Intelligence-Driven Echocardiographic Assessment of Diastolic Function.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgound: Accurate assessment of diastolic function and left ventricular (LV) filling pressure is central to heart failure diagnosis and risk stratification. Contemporary guideline algorithms rely on complex parameters that are not consistently available in routine clinical practice. Objective: To compare the diagnostic and prognostic performance of the 2016 American Society of Echocardiography/European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) and 2025 ASE guidelines with a deep learning model based on routinely acquired echocardiographic variables. Methods: This study evaluated the guideline-based algorithms and a deep learning model in participants from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) cohort (n=5450) for prognostication and two invasive hemodynamic validation cohorts from the United States (n=83) and Japan (n=130) for detection of elevated left ventricular filling pressure. Results: In the ARIC cohort, the deep learning model demonstrated superior prognostic performance compared with the 2016 and 2025 guidelines (C-index: 0.676 vs. 0.638 and 0.602, respectively; both p<0.001). Similar findings were observed among participants with preserved ejection fraction (C-index: 0.660 vs. 0.628 and 0.590; both p<0.001), with improved performance compared with the H Conclusions: A deep learning model leveraging routinely available echocardiographic parameters demonstrated improved diagnostic and prognostic performance compared with contemporary guideline-based approaches, potentially offering a scalable alternative for assessing diastolic function and left ventricular filling pressures.
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.