Cited by 5Ultrasound in Clinical ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics

Integrating AI-ECG and point-of-care cardiac ultrasound for screening structural heart disease: A proof-of-concept study

Open access
Alexandrino, Francisco B., Schlesinger, Reid, Bird, Jared, Lee, Eunjung, Deshmukh, Abhishek J., Nkomo, Vuyisile T., Oh, Jae K., Noseworthy, Peter A. +7 more·2026·American Heart Journal

Abstract

Background Early structural heart disease (SHD) detection is crucial for improving prognostic outcomes, but widely accessible screening methods are lacking. The advent of artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiograms (AI-ECG) and point-of-care cardiac-ultrasonography (POCCUS) offers promising new approaches for patient screening. We explored the feasibility and potential of integrating these innovative technologies into a practical SHD screening framework. Methods Outpatients undergoing ECG at the Mayo Clinic ECG laboratory between November 2023 and February 2024 were pragmatically offered POCCUS, performed by novice operators and reviewed by expert echocardiographers. AI-ECG and POCCUS findings were integrated to assess SHD, including reduced left ventricular systolic function (ejection-fraction<50%), aortic stenosis, and increased left ventricular wall thickness suggestive of cardiac amyloidosis or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Operators were blinded to patients' comorbidities and formal echocardiogram results. Results Of 486 patients (median-age 64 years; 49% women), 286 had available formal echocardiography, with 17.5% having SHD. AI-ECG had a 32% positive predictive value (PPV) and a 94% negative predictive value (NPV) to detect any SHD. Adding POCCUS increased the overall PPV to 64% with an NPV of 93%, with an increase in diagnostic accuracy from 67% to 88%. Notably, 89.5% (17/19) of the "false positives" by AI-ECG + POCCUS had less-than-moderate-SHD. Applying the AI-ECG + POCCUS screening workflow on the entire cohort resulted in a number-needed-to-screen of 8 to identify 1 patient requiring formal echocardiography. Conclusions The integration of AI-ECG and POCCUS holds promise as a potentially effective screening method for SHD, facilitating improved patient selection for formal echocardiography.

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 · 10.1016/j.ahj.2025.107337

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Alexandrino et al 2026 found that AI-ECG followed by point-of-care cardiac ultrasound had PPV 32% and NPV 94%; adding POCUS increased PPV to 64%, maintained NPV at 93%, and improved accuracy from 67% to 88%.

    “AI-ECG PPV 32% and NPV 94%; adding POCUS increased PPV to 64%, maintained NPV at 93%, and improved accuracy from 67% to 88%”
  • In Alexandrino et al., among 286 patients with available reference echocardiography, a two-tier workflow of AI-ECG followed by focused point-of-care cardiac ultrasound increased positive predictive value from 32% to 64%, maintained a negative predictive value of 93%, improved overall diagnostic accuracy from 67% to 88%, and yielded a number-needed-to-screen of 8 to identify 1 patient requiring正式?

    “Among 286 patients with available reference echocardiography, the combined strategy increased positive predictive value from 32% to 64% while maintaining a negative predictive value of 93% and improving overall diagnostic accuracy from 67% to 88%, supporting referral enrichment rather than definitive rule-out. Applied to the full pragmatic cohort, this workflow yielded a number-needed-to-screen of”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alexandrino, F. B., Schlesinger, R., Bird, J., Lee, E., Deshmukh, A. J., Nkomo, V. T., Oh, J. K., Noseworthy, P. A., Pellikka, P. A., Attia, Z., Lopez-Jimenez, F., Friedman, P. A., Kane, G. C., Pislaru, S. V., & Tsaban, G.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Tsaban, Gal
Venue
American Heart Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-04
Volume
294
Pages
107337
ISSN
0002-8703 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7117763061
Cited by
5
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
4.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Heart Journal (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Keywords
AI-ECG, aortic stenosis, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac amyloidosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, left ventricular wall thickness, number needed to screen, diagnostic accuracy, outpatients
MeSH terms
Proof of Concept Study, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Echocardiography, Electrocardiography, Feasibility Studies, Female, Heart Diseases, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Point-of-Care Systems

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