Cited by 17Ultrasound in Clinical ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empowering Medical Students: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Precision Point-of-Care Echocardiography Assessment of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Open access

Abstract

Introduction. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) use is now universal among nonexperts. Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently employed by nonexperts in various imaging modalities to assist in diagnosis and decision making. Aim. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS, operated by medical students with the assistance of an AI-based tool for assessing the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of patients admitted to a cardiology department. Methods. Eight students underwent a 6-hour didactic and hands-on training session. Participants used a hand-held ultrasound device (HUD) equipped with an AI-based tool for the automatic evaluation of LVEF. The clips were assessed for LVEF by three methods: visually by the students, by students + the AI-based tool, and by the cardiologists. All LVEF measurements were compared to formal echocardiography completed within 24 hours and were evaluated for LVEF using the Simpson method and eyeballing assessment by expert echocardiographers. Results. The study included 88 patients (aged 58.3 ± 16.3 years). The AI-based tool measurement was unsuccessful in 6 cases. Comparing LVEF reported by students’ visual evaluation and students + AI vs. cardiologists revealed a correlation of 0.51 and 0.83, respectively. Comparing these three evaluation methods with the echocardiographers revealed a moderate/substantial agreement for the students + AI and cardiologists but only a fair agreement for the students’ visual evaluation. Conclusion. Medical students’ utilization of an AI-based tool with a HUD for LVEF assessment achieved a level of accuracy similar to that of cardiologists. Furthermore, the use of AI by the students achieved moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability with expert echocardiographers’ evaluation.

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 · 10.1155/2023/5225872

Cites

30 of 30 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 [93]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dadon, Z., Orlev, A., Butnaru, A., Rosenmann, D., Glikson, M., Gottlieb, S., & Alpert, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Shaare Zedek Medical Center (IL)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Dadon, Ziv
Venue
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-11-29
Volume
2023
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 1368-5031 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-1241
OpenAlex
W4389131563
Cited by
17
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Clinical Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Keywords
point-of-care ultrasound, left ventricular ejection fraction, artificial intelligence, medical students, diagnostic accuracy, inter-rater reliability, ultrasound training
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Echocardiography, Humans, Power, Psychological, Stroke Volume, Students, Medical, Reproducibility of Results, Ventricular Function, Left, 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