Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound with artificial intelligence-assisted assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is becoming standard practice in a wide spectrum of clinical settings. There is limited data evaluating the real-world use of FoCUS with artificial intelligence (AI). Our objective was to determine the accuracy of FoCUS AI-assisted left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment and compare its accuracy between novice and experienced users. In this prospective, multicentre study, participants requiring a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) were recruited to have a FoCUS done by a novice or experienced user. The AI-assisted device calculated LVEF at the bedside, which was subsequently compared to TTE. 449 participants were enrolled with 424 studies included in the final analysis. The overall intraclass coefficient was 0.904, and 0.921 in the novice (n = 208) and 0.845 in the experienced (n = 216) cohorts. There was a significant bias of 0.73% towards TTE (p = 0.005) with a level of agreement of 11.2%. Categorical grading of LVEF severity had excellent agreement to TTE (weighted kappa = 0.83). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.98 for identifying an abnormal LVEF (<50%) with a sensitivity of 92.8%, specificity of 92.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.97 and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.83. In identifying severe dysfunction (<30%) the AUC was 0.99 with a sensitivity of 78.1%, specificity of 98.0%, NPV of 0.98 and PPV of 0.76. Here we report that FoCUS AI-assisted LVEF assessments provide highly reproducible LVEF estimations in comparison to formal TTE. This finding was consistent among senior and novice echocardiographers suggesting applicability in a variety of clinical settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".