MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409705781 · doi:10.3390/jcm14092899

AI-Augmented Point of Care Ultrasound in Intensive Care Unit Patients: Can Novices Perform a “Basic Echo” to Estimate Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction in This Acute-Care Setting?

2025· article· en· W4409705781 on OpenAlexafffund
Cassandra Gallant, Lori A. Bernard, Cherise Kwok, Stephanie Wichuk, Michelle Noga, Kumaradevan Punithakumar, Abhilash Rakkunedeth Hareendranathan, Harald Becher, Brian Buchanan, Jacob L. Jaremko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsSonographerEjection fractionMedicineParasternal linePoint of care ultrasoundPoint of careUltrasoundEcho (communications protocol)CardiologyRadiologyNuclear medicineHeart failureComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Echocardiography is crucial to understanding cardiac function in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), often by measuring the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Traditionally, measures of LVEF are completed as part of a comprehensive examination by an expert sonographer or cardiologist, but front-line practitioners increasingly perform focused point-of-care estimates of LVEF while managing life-threatening illness. The two main echocardiographic windows used to grossly estimate LVEF are parasternal and apical windows. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have recently been developed to assist non-experts in obtaining and interpreting point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) echo images. We tested the feasibility, accuracy and reliability of novice users estimating LVEF using POCUS-AI echo. Methods: A total of 30 novice users (most never holding an ultrasound probe before) received 2 h of instruction, then scanned ICU patients (10 patients, 80 scans) using the Exo Iris POCUS probe with AI guidance tool. They were permitted up to 5 min to attempt parasternal long axis (PLAX) and apical 4 chamber (A4C) views. AI-reported LVEF results from these scans were compared to gold-standard LVEF obtained by an expert echo sonographer. To further assess accuracy, this sonographer also scanned another 65 patients using Exo Iris POCUS-AI vs. conventional protocol. Results: Novices obtained images sufficient to estimate LVEF in 96% of patients in <5 min. Novices obtained PLAX views significantly faster than A4C (1.5 min vs. 2.3 min). Inter-rater reliability of LVEF estimation was very high (ICC 0.88–0.94) whether images were obtained by novices or experts. In n = 65 patients, POCUS-AI LVEF was highly specific for a decreased LVEF ≤ 40% (SP = 90% for PLAX) but only moderately sensitive (SN = 56–70%). Conclusions: Estimating cardiac LVEF from AI-enhanced POCUS is highly feasible even for novices in ICU settings, particularly using the PLAX view. POCUS-AI LVEF results were highly consistent whether performed by novice or expert. When AI detected a decreased LVEF, it was highly accurate, although a normal LVEF reported by POCUS-AI was not necessarily reassuring. This POCUS-AI tool could be clinically useful to rapidly confirm a suspected low LVEF in an ICU patient. Further improvements to sensitivity for low LVEF are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.400 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207