ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Automated echocardiographic measurements for longitudinal monitoring of ATTR cardiomyopathy: agreement and repeatability analysis.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Detection of disease progression is key to personalize treatment strategies in transthyretin cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), particularly with emerging therapies. Echocardiography can detect subtle longitudinal changes but is limited by operator dependence. This study evaluates agreement and reproducibility of fully automated, AI-assisted echocardiographic measurements under real-world conditions. This retrospective study included 62 patients with ATTR-CM undergoing 178 serial annual echocardiograms assessed by a reference human reader, a second cardiologist (cardiologist 2), a novice reader, and a fully automated AI algorithm (Us2.ai). Interrater agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Intrarater variability for human readers was derived from repeated blinded measurements, with limits of agreement (LoA = mean difference ± 1.96 × SD) defining the minimal detectable change. AI repeatability was assessed using within-study automated pipeline variability across available acquisitions. AI showed moderate agreement with the reference human reader for IVSd and LVEDV (ICC 0.65 and 0.51), with biases of - 1.9 mm and - 39 mL, respectively. Interrater agreement between cardiologists was good (ICC 0.79 and 0.84) with minimal bias (- 0.2 mm and + 3 mL). Intrarater variability was moderate to excellent for both cardiologists (LoA 3.0 mm and 43 mL for the reference human reader; 2.7 mm and 44 mL for cardiologist 2). AI demonstrated comparable repeatability (LoA 3.6 mm and 37 mL), while the novice showed higher variability (5.1 mm and 61 mL). Fully automated measurements showed within-study variability of similar magnitude to the intrarater variability of experienced readers, although obtained with different experimental designs, supporting further prospective evaluation for serial assessment. Agreement in absolute terms was moderate for wall thickness and LV volumes, indicating expert oversight remains necessary in advanced disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42806182What 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.