ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2026
Real-life clinical validation of artificial intelligence-assisted echocardiography for aortic root and left ventricular outflow tract measurements against human readers and cardiac magnetic resonance.
Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms may improve echocardiographic measurement standardization, but direct validation against cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between AI-assisted transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), expert manual TTE, and CMR as a gold standard for aortic root and left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameters. Methods and results: Out of 183 patients with analysable TTE and CMR recordings performed within 7 days, 169 had complete measurements of LVOT, sinotubular junction (STJ), and sinus of Valsalva (SoV) by AI and were included in the primary analysis. Automated AI measurements were obtained using the US2.ai platform and compared with those of expert echocardiographers and CMR. Agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Agreement between Expert 1 and CMR, and Expert 2 and CMR, yielded ICCs: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.50-0.73) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.36-0.65) for LVOT, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.78) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73-0.87) for STJ, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.89) to 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78-0.89) for SoV, respectively. Artificial intelligence-derived measurements demonstrated comparable agreement with CMR: ICC 0.70 (95% CI: 0.61-0.77) for LVOT, 0.77 (95% 0.70-0.83) for STJ, and 0.77 (95% 0.70-0.83) for SoV. Clinically significant differences (≥2 mm for LVOT and ≥4 mm for STJ and SoV) between AI and CMR measurements were observed in 36.7% of LVOT, 20% of STJ, and 11.8% of SoV measurements. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence-assisted echocardiography showed comparable agreement for aortic root and LVOT measurements, but physician oversight remains necessary.
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.