ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Artificial intelligence-enabled non-invasive quantification of left ventricular end-systolic pressure: an in silico analysis.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvasive pressure-volume loop (PVL) analysis is the gold standard method to quantify myocardial physiology. To enhance broader clinical applicability, non-invasive approaches to derive left ventricular (LV) PVLs have gained prominence, typically estimating LV end-systolic pressure (ESP) from brachial blood pressure (BP) alone. However, this approach does not account for factors that may modulate the pressure waveform as it propagates from the LV to the brachial artery, notably arterial stiffness. We trained an artificial-intelligence (AI) model to predict invasive LVESP from a set of non-invasive hemodynamic parameters and compared its performance with commonly used equations for estimating LVESP using solely brachial BPs.
methodsAn in silico cohort of healthy adults (N = 3,837, age: 48.6 ± 17.0y), previously shown to have good agreement for aortic and brachial BP with in vivo data, was split into training and validation cohorts using an internal hold-out validation approach. Clinically relevant parameters were selected as inputs to a random forest machine learning model.
resultsThe best performing model included systolic and diastolic brachial BP, heart rate, age, and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), and reliably predicted LVESP (root mean square error: 0.99 mmHg). AI-derived LVESP correlated more strongly with simulated invasive LVESP (r = 0.994) than commonly used equations (r = 0.909-0.908). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated significant bias in brachial BP-only equations (mean bias: -4.01, limits of agreement [LoA] [± 1.96 standard deviations]: -11.1 to 3.06 mmHg), with the direction of bias varying across different ages. AI-derived LVESP displayed smaller bias (mean bias: 0.002, LoA: -1.94 to 1.94 mmHg) and had negligible age-related bias across the lifespan.
conclusionsIn this hypothesis generating study, a novel non-invasive, AI-enabled approach to LVESP quantification incorporating age, PWV and other key hemodynamic parameters alongside brachial BPs yielded smaller average error across the lifespan than commonly used brachial BP-only equations. These results warrant validation in vivo to ascertain real-world predictive performance.
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.