ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2026
Artificial Intelligence Echocardiographic Interpretation in the Emergency Department: Agreement, Interpretation Yield and Reporting Scope.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI) interpretation and expert emergency physician sonologist review of echocardiograms performed in the Emergency Department (ED).
methodsRetrospective multicentre agreement study in four Australian EDs. A total of 195 echocardiograms (2016-2023) underwent three-stage adjudicated human expert review. Human reports were compared with us2.ai reports. Agreement across 10 validated parameters was reported as percentage exact match with 95% confidence intervals and kappa under two pre-specified tiers: Guideline Compliant (GC; ASE/EACVI multi-view criteria) and Pragmatic (PR; any available measurement). Reference standard reliability was quantified.
resultsPooled agreement was 76% at both tiers (GC n = 875; PR n = 1323); AI returned an interpretation in 46% of evaluations at GC and 70% at PR. Four structural parameters reached 78%-87%: right atrial size 87% (κ = 0.62), right ventricular (RV) contractility 83% (κ = 0.42), left ventricular (LV) size 83% (κ = 0.52) and RV size 78% (κ = 0.37). Binary LV systolic agreement was 79% GC and 83% PR. Expert reviewers agreed on 85% of interpretations. Pericardial effusion, aortic regurgitation and mitral stenosis, present in 7%-20% of patients, are not reported in the current us2.ai algorithm.
conclusionAI agreed with expert review in about three-quarters of evaluations but provided a guideline-compliant interpretation in less than half; a pragmatic approach raised yield to 70% at the same agreement. The AI withheld classifications that experts could reach; its validated scope covers only part of what ED echocardiography must address, and reports did not mark unassessed parameters. This study reports agreement, not accuracy. For now, human expert review of AI reports is required.
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.