ArticleEcho research and practice2026
Reporting changes in right ventricular systolic pressure: insights from Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis.
Article in Echo research and practice, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRight ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) is an echocardiographic metric to monitor pulmonary hypertension (PH). However, there is no recommendation on what constitutes a meaningful change. In this study, we aimed to gain insight into how physicians at our institution report significant changes in RVSP. We then aimed to quantify the analytic variability of reported RVSP using duplicate analysis.
methodsWe utilized the Stanford CardioShare Registry to identify 5,934 patients with 32,656 echocardiogram pairs with reported RVSP. Natural Language Processing was employed to categorize pairs into decrease, increase, no change, and no direct mention. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was applied to these groups to identify reporting thresholds among physicians. To assess the performance of the CART model, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score were reported using a stratified cross-validation method. In a separate cohort comprising 210 healthy volunteers and 208 patients with PH, two blinded core laboratory cardiologists measured the peak tricuspid regurgitation velocity. We employed a duplicate analysis method to model bias and a robust precision method for reporting RVSP and assessing analytical variability.
resultsOf the total pairs of echocardiographic studies, RVSP was reported as stable in 48.9%, increased in 12.5%, decreased in 9.9% while 28.7% did not have a direct reference to RVSP change. CART analysis revealed that physicians most commonly determine change based on an absolute threshold of 8 mmHg and whether the change occurred within or outside the reference range. On cross-validation, the accuracy and F1-score were 83% and 79% for the increase and 81% and 74% for the decrease algorithms. In the duplicate analysis cohort, the analytic precision was 8-10% with worst relative precision at lower values of RVSP. This translates into a 15% reference change value, assuming a 4-5% biological variation.
conclusionThe study provides insights on real world practice of physician reporting in RVSP and provides directions for future recommendations regarding report changes.
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.