Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42078362›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026

Comparison of the Expert Guidelines With Artificial Intelligence-Driven Echocardiographic Assessment of Diastolic Function.

Márton Tokodi, Nobuyuki Kagiyama, Ambarish Pandey, Yutaka Nakamura, Yuka Akama, Sachiko Takamatsu, Misako Toki, Takeshi Kitai, Taiji Okada, Carolyn S P Lam and 2 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Nobuyuki Kagiyama
Ambarish Pandey
Yutaka Nakamura
Yuka Akama
Sachiko Takamatsu
Misako Toki
Takeshi Kitai
Taiji Okada
Carolyn S P Lam
Naveena Yanamala
Partho P Sengupta

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42078362
PMCPMC13131703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.