Assessment of an Artificial Intelligence Tool for Estimating Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in Echocardiograms from Apical and Parasternal Long-Axis Views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to evaluate the performance of a new artificial intelligence tool (ExoAI) to compute the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in echocardiograms of the apical and parasternal long axis (PLAX) views. We retrospectively gathered echocardiograms from 441 individual patients (70% male, age: 67.3 ± 15.3, weight: 87.7 ± 25.4, BMI: 29.5 ± 7.4) and computed the ejection fraction in each echocardiogram using the ExoAI algorithm. We compared its performance against the ejection fraction from the clinical report. ExoAI achieved a root mean squared error of 7.58% in A2C, 7.45% in A4C, and 7.29% in PLAX, and correlations of 0.79, 0.75, and 0.89, respectively. As for the detection of low EF values (EF < 50%), ExoAI achieved an accuracy of 83% in A2C, 80% in A4C, and 91% in PLAX. Our results suggest that ExoAI effectively estimates the LVEF and it is an effective tool for estimating abnormal ejection fraction values (EF < 50%). Importantly, the PLAX view allows for the estimation of the ejection fraction when it is not feasible to acquire apical views (e.g., in ICU settings where it is not possible to move the patient to obtain an apical scan).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".