ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2026
Fully automated analysis of cardiotoxicity surveillance echocardiograms: a direct test-retest precision comparison with experts.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06817044 (Direct Comparison of the Accuracy and Reproducibility of MUGA, CMR and Echocardiography for Cardiac Function Assessment in Oncology Patients at Risk of Cardiotoxicity), which is not on this 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.
Direct Comparison of the Accuracy and Reproducibility of MUGA, CMR and Echocardiography for Cardiac Function Assessment in Oncology Patients at Risk of Cardiotoxicity
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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Serial imaging demands precision-particularly for cardiotoxicity screening where small changes gatekeep major decisions. Automated measurement using artificial intelligence (AI)-based techniques should reduce variability and increase confidence for detection of true change. We directly compared the precision of fully automated AI vs. expert manual analysis of left ventricular function by echocardiography. Methods and results: Consecutive cancer patients referred for cardiotoxicity monitoring underwent same-day repeat 2D echocardiography [ Conclusion: In cancer patients at risk of cardiotoxicity, the precision of 2D echocardiographic AI analysis exceeds that of experts, matching that of 3D LVEF assessment. Trial Registration: NCT06817044. Lay summary: Some cancer treatments may weaken the heart. As such, at-risk patients have repeat heart scans (echocardiograms) over the course of their cancer treatment. Doctors monitor these scans over time and watch closely for any change; even a small decline in heart function can trigger a major decision, such as pausing life-saving cancer therapy. It is therefore vital that these measurements are as consistent or 'precise' as possible.The problem is that measurements taken by hand can vary widely, and 'precision' may be low, even when performed by skilled experts. This makes it hard to know whether a change in heart function across follow-up scans is real or not and whether any action is therefore needed. We tested whether artificial intelligence (AI) software could measure heart function more precisely than experts.Sixty cancer patients each had two echocardiographic heart scans in close succession on the same day. This approach purposefully reduces the impact of other factors (such as differences in the person or equipment performing the heart scan) that might otherwise mean results differ. We then compared how closely the repeat measurements of heart function matched when performed by AI vs. four echocardiography experts. The AI was more precise, giving closer results between the two scans, whilst the experts' results varied more.In short, AI can measure heart function more precisely than experts in patients with cancer. This could give doctors greater confidence that any change seen on a scan is genuine, helping them make safer, better-informed decisions.
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.