ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention2026
Accuracy of machine learning models for mitral regurgitation severity assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on "Machine learning and regression-based models for prediction of postoperative atrial fibrillation following coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis".International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Article
- Comment on "accuracy of machine learning models for mitral regurgitation severity assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis".International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.