MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417201030 · doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02140-w

EchoGraph system for automated quality assessment of echocardiography reports

2025· article· en· W4417201030 on OpenAlexaff
Chieh‐Ju Chao, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Mohammad Asadi, Imon Banerjee, Juan Farina, Francesca Galasso, Ahmed K. Mahmoud, Mohammed Tiseer Abbas, Yu-Chiang Wang, Reza Arsanjani, Garvan C. Kane, Jae K. Oh, Bradley J. Erickson, Li Fei-Fei, Ehsan Adeli, Curtis P. Langlotz

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Digital Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMayo Clinic
KeywordsSchema (genetic algorithms)Variance (accounting)Quality assessmentQuality ScoreF1 scoreQuality (philosophy)Sensitivity (control systems)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generative AI needs automatic clinical text accuracy metrics, but none exist for echocardiography. To address this, we developed EchoGraph, a BERT-based model trained on 600 densely annotated echocardiography reports from the Mayo Clinic (2017), split 7:2:1 for training, validation, and testing, using a tailored schema with 48,256 entities and 29,731 relations annotated. Sixty random MIMIC-EchoNote reports were annotated (3672 entities and 2360 relations) for external validation. EchoGraph demonstrated strong performance predicting entities (micro F1 0.85) and relations (micro F1 0.70), maintaining performance on external validation (entity micro F1 0.80, relation micro F1 0.52). EchoGraph F1 score showed superior error sensitivity versus RadGraph F1, with 2.8-fold higher slope magnitude (−0.817 vs −0.291) and better variance explained ( R 2 = 0.803 vs 0.578). EchoGraph offers an effective solution for evaluating language model-based echocardiography applications, supporting more accurate AI-generated reports.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.367 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Digital MedicineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207