Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42079359›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention2026

Accuracy of machine learning models for mitral regurgitation severity assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pooya Eini, Golnaz Houshmand, Homa Serpoush, Mohammad Rezayee, Milan Kassulke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pooya EiniCardiovascular Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Institute, Tehran, Iran.
Golnaz HoushmandCardiovascular Imaging Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Institute, Tehran, Iran.
Homa SerpoushHamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Mohammad RezayeeCollege of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Milan KassulkeCollege of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate assessment of mitral regurgitation (MR) severity is crucial for guiding clinical management, but is often limited by the subjectivity and variability of traditional echocardiographic evaluations. Machine learning (ML) models offer potential for automated, objective MR grading, yet their diagnostic performance remains underexplored. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ML-based models for assessing MR severity. Methods: We searched five different databases for studies evaluating ML algorithms (deep learning or traditional ML) for MR severity assessment in adults. Data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed using the PROBAST + AI tool. A bivariate random-effects model was used to pool diagnostic metrics, with heterogeneity quantified via I Results: Nine studies met inclusion criteria, demonstrating strong ML performance with a pooled AUROC of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98), sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.83-0.97), and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92-0.98). High heterogeneity (I Conclusion: ML models demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for assessing MR severity, with the potential to enhance clinical decision-making by reducing subjectivity. However, high heterogeneity and limited external validation necessitate prospective, standardized trials to ensure generalizability and clinical adoption.

Indexed as

Cardiac imagingDeep learningMachine learningMitral regurgitationValvular heart disease

Identifiers

PMID42079359
PMCPMC13129465

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.