Handheld Echocardiography in a Clinical Practice Scenario: Concordances Compared to Standard Echocardiographic Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of a handheld device (HH) used during common daily practice and its agreement with the results of a standard echocardiography study (STD) performed by experienced sonographers and echocardiographer. METHODS: A prospective follow-up was conducted in an adult outpatient echocardiography clinic. Experienced sonographers performed the STD and an experienced echocardiographer performed the HH. STD included 2-dimensional images, Doppler and hemodynamics analysis. Hemodynamic assessment was not performed with the HH device because the HH does not include such technology. The images were interpreted by blinded echocardiographers, and the agreement between the reports was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were included; and the concordance for left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction (EF), wall motion score index, LV and right ventricle (RV) function, RV size, and mitral and aortic stenosis was excellent with κ values greater than 0.80. Wall motion abnormalities had good concordance (κ value 0.78). The agreement for LV hypertrophy, mitral and aortic regurgitation was moderate, and tricuspid and pulmonary regurgitation agreements were low (κ values of 0.26 and 0.25, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In a daily practice scenario with experienced hands, HH demonstrated good correlation for most echocardiography indications, such as ventricular size and function assessment and stenosis valve lesion analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".