Cited by 98Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A machine learning algorithm supports ultrasound-naïve novices in the acquisition of diagnostic echocardiography loops and provides accurate estimation of LVEF

Open access

Abstract

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the most important parameter in the assessment of cardiac function. A machine-learning algorithm was trained to guide ultrasound-novices to acquire diagnostic echocardiography images. The artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm then estimates LVEF from the captured apical-4-chamber (AP4), apical-2-chamber (AP2), and parasternal-long-axis (PLAX) loops. We sought to test this algorithm by having first-year medical students without previous ultrasound knowledge scan real patients. Nineteen echo-naïve first-year medical students were trained in the basics of echocardiography by a 2.5 h online video tutorial. Each student then scanned three patients with the help of the AI. Image quality was graded according to the American College of Emergency Physicians scale. If rated as diagnostic quality, the AI calculated LVEF from the acquired loops (monoplane and also a “best-LVEF” considering all views acquired in the particular patient). These LVEF calculations were compared to images of the same patients captured and read by three experts (ground-truth LVEF [GT-EF]). The novices acquired diagnostic-quality images in 33/57 (58%), 49/57 (86%), and 39/57 (68%) patients in the PLAX, AP4, and AP2, respectively. At least one of the three views was obtained in 91% of the attempts. We found an excellent agreement between the machine’s LVEF calculations from images acquired by the novices with the GT-EF (bias of 3.5% ± 5.6 and r = 0.92, p < 0.001 in the “best-LVEF” algorithm). This pilot study shows first evidence that a machine-learning algorithm can guide ultrasound-novices to acquire diagnostic echo loops and provide an automated LVEF calculation that is in agreement with a human expert.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10554-020-02046-6

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In cardiology, AI-assisted teaching has been used to help learn how to perform echocardiography and to evaluate the determination of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); AI helped accelerate progression from novice to expert with ultrasound use.

    “In cardiology, AI-assisted teaching has been used to help learn how to perform echocardiography [91, 92] and to evaluate the determination of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [93]. In addition, AI helped accelerate progression from novice to expert with ultrasound use [93].”

    From Artificial intelligence in undergraduate medical education: an updated scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [92]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American College of Emergency Physicians (2016) Emergency ultrasound standard reporting guidelines. Ann Emerg Med 38:470

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schneider, M., Bartko, P., Geller, W., Dannenberg, V., König, A., Binder, C., Goliasch, G., Hengstenberg, C., & Binder, T.
Affiliations
Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Schneider, Matthias
Venue
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
Published
2020-10-08
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
577-586
ISSN
  • 0167-9899 (ISSN-L)
  • 1569-5794
  • 1573-0743
OpenAlex
W3092003221
Cited by
98
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International journal of cardiac imaging (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical University of Vienna
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
echocardiography, left ventricular ejection fraction, machine learning, image quality grading, apical four-chamber view, parasternal long-axis view, apical two-chamber view, cardiac function assessment
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Aged, Clinical Competence, Echocardiography, Female, Heart Diseases, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Predictive Value of Tests, Stroke Volume, Students, Medical, Reproducibility of Results, Ventricular Function, Left

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review