ArticleCardiovascular ultrasound2026
The diagnostic accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction assessment between visual and artificial intelligence-based algorithms on bedside ultrasound.
Article in Cardiovascular ultrasound, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFocused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) has become the standard of care for bedside assessments of cardiac function. With the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), there is limited evidence comparing it to bedside visual assessments by experienced users.
methodsIn our prospective study conducted at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts from December 2020 to March 2022, patients ≥ 18 years requiring a TTE were recruited by convenience sampling. They each underwent FoCUS LVEF classification by AI and bedside visual assessment, with TTE as reference. LVEF was calculated by Simpson's biplane method of disks in AI-FoCUS and TTE, and visual global assessment by the bedside sonographer. Data analysis was completed in October 2025.
resultsOur 215 participants had a median age of 63 (IQR 49-73) years with 83 (38.6%) being female. AI-FoCUS assessments showed good agreement with TTE (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88), while visual assessments had stronger concordance (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.98). Categorization of LV dysfunction severity showed excellent agreement with TTE for both AI-FoCUS (kappa 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.94) and visual estimate (kappa 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99). For AI-FoCUS, the area under the curve (AUC) for identifying an abnormal LVEF (< 50%) was 0.9779 (95% CI: 0.9591-0.9967) with sensitivity 90.9% (95% CI: 88.1-100), specificity 95.6% (95% CI: 92.6-98.6), positive predictive value (PPV) 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.92) and negative predictive value (NPV) 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00). For visual estimate, the AUC was 0.9961 (95% CI: 0.9915-1.000) with sensitivity 90.9% (95% CI: 88.1-100), specificity 97.8% (95% CI: 95.7-99.9), PPV 0.88 (95% CI: 0.77-0.99) and NPV 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-1.00).
conclusionAI-assisted FoCUS LVEF assessments provide accurate estimates for the presence and severity of LV dysfunction but are outperformed in the latter by experienced bedside users.
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.