Key result
One Loop AI yields a 0.89 correlation with CMR LVEF, outperforming human experts and multi-loop AI.
Why the study?
AI-based echocardiographic analysis is increasingly utilized, but its LVEF measurements needed comparison against expert echocardiography analysis and the reference standard of CMR.
Does automated AI-based echocardiographic analysis provide comparable LVEF assessment to human experts when compared to CMR in patients undergoing both imaging modalities?
Observational (n=118)
Does automated AI-based echocardiographic analysis provide comparable LVEF assessment to human experts when compared to CMR in patients undergoing both imaging modalities?
Effect estimate: R=0.89
AI-based echocardiographic analysis, particularly when using a single high-quality loop, provides LVEF assessments that are highly concordant with CMR and comparable to expert human readers.
Single-loop AI may streamline LVEF assessment; leaves open prospective validation and outcome impact beyond this cross-sectional cohort.
Background Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold standard for assessing left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction (LVEF). Artificial intelligence (AI) - based echocardiographic analysis is increasingly utilized. Purpose This study compares measurements of LVEF between echocardiography (ECHO) assessed by experts and automated AI, in comparison to CMR as the reference standard. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 118 patients who underwent both CMR and ECHO within 7 days. LVEF measured by CMR was compared with results obtained from an AI-based software which automatically analyzed all stored DICOM loops (Multi loop AI analysis). Additionally, AI results were repeated using only one best quality loop for 2 and one for 4 chamber views (One Loop AI Analysis). These results were further compared with standard ECHO analysis performed by two independent experts. Agreement was investigated using Pearson’s correlation and Bland-Altman analysis as well as Cohen’s Kappa and concordance for categorisation of LVEF into subgroups (≤30%, 31-40%, 41-50%, 51-70%; and >70%). Results Both Experts demonstrated strong inter-reader agreement (R=0.88, κ=0.77) and correlated well with CMR LVEF (Expert 1: R=0.86, κ=0.74; Expert 2: R=0.85, κ=0.68). Multi loop AI analysis correlated strongly with CMR (R=0.87, κ=0.68) and Experts (R=0.88–0.90). One Loop AI Analysis achieved superior concordance with CMR LVEF (R=0.89, κ=0.75), outperforming Multi loop AI analysis and Experts. Conclusions AI-based analysis showed similar LVEF assessment as human experts in comparison to CMR results. AI-based ECHO analysis are promising, but the obtained results should be interpreted with caution in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Molek-Dziadosz et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Left ventricular ejection fraction assessment (n=118). AI-based echocardiographic analysis vs. Expert-assessed echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance was evaluated on Agreement of LVEF measurement with CMR reference standard (R=0.89). One-loop AI-based echocardiographic analysis achieved superior concordance with CMR for LVEF assessment (R=0.89, κ=0.75), outperforming multi-loop AI analysis and human experts.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: