ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Automated artificial intelligence-enabled measurement of cardiac structures on point-of-care ultrasonography: a prospective multicenter validation study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) enables clinicians to obtain critical diagnostic information at the bedside, especially in resource-limited settings. This information may include 2D cardiac quantitative data, although measuring the data manually can be time-consuming and subject to user experience. Artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially automate this quantification. This study assessed the interpretation of key cardiac measurements on POCUS images by an AI-enabled device (AISAP Cardio V1.0). Methods: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study included 200 POCUS cases from four hospitals (two in Israel and two in the United States). Each case was independently interpreted by three cardiologists and the device for seven measurements [left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, inferior vena cava (IVC) maximal diameter, left atrial (LA) area, right atrial (RA) area, LV end-diastolic diameter, right ventricular (RV) fractional area change, and aortic root diameter]. The endpoints were the root mean square error (RMSE) of the device compared with the average cardiologist measurement (LV ejection fraction and IVC maximal diameter were primary endpoints; the other measurements were secondary endpoints). Predefined passing criteria were based on the upper bounds of the RMSE 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The intercardiologist RMSE was also calculated for reference. Results: The device achieved the passing criteria for six of the seven measurements. Although not achieving the passing criterion for RV fractional area change, it still achieved a better RMSE than the intercardiologist RMSE. The RMSE was 6.20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.57-6.83; intercardiologist RMSE of 8.23%] for LV ejection fraction, 0.25 cm (95% CI: 0.20-0.29; 0.36 cm) for IVC maximal diameter, 2.39 cm Discussion: The device accurately calculated these cardiac measurements especially when benchmarked against intercardiologist variability. Its use could assist clinicians who utilize POCUS and better enable their clinical decision-making.
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.