ArticleJournal of echocardiography2026
Explainable machine learning for estimation of elevated left ventricular filling pressure: a multicenter validation.
Article in Journal of echocardiography, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Echocardiographic Assessment of Diastolic Dysfunction: A Systematic Review.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGuideline-recommended algorithms (GL-algorithm) often results in indeterminate left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP). Despite high accuracy, machine learning (ML) methods lack interpretability, which necessitates the development of explainable ML models for clinical use.
objectiveTo develop an explainable ML model for estimating LVFP, providing patient-level interpretation using gold-standard right heart catheterization (RHC) data.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 956 patients who underwent echocardiography and RHC at three hospitals within a median of 3 days. Two extreme gradient boosting models were trained using data from two hospitals (n = 621) to estimate elevated pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP ≥ 18 mmHg) as a surrogate for elevated LVFP. Model 1 used variables from GL-algorithm, while Model 2 used variables selected based on Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values. Models' area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for elevated LVFP were compared using external test data from the other hospital (n = 335).
resultsOverall, 31.0% had elevated PAWP, and 42.7% were classified as indeterminate LVFP by GL-algorithm, whereas the ML models classified all patients. AUROCs of Model 1 (0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.92) and Model 2 (0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91) in classifiable cases by GL-algorithm significantly outperformed that of GL-algorithm (0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.83, p = 0.020 and 0.016, respectively), Model 2 performed equally well for indeterminate cases. SHAP force plots visualized each variable's contribution to the ML model's decision for each patient.
conclusionsExplainable ML outperformed GL-algorithm in estimating LVFP, providing a user-friendly tool for clinicians with patient-level interpretability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42213288What 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.