Key result
Artificial intelligence models demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of tricuspid regurgitation, yielding a pooled AUROC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92).
Why the study?
Underdiagnosis of TR persists due to echocardiography operator dependence and variability, while artificial intelligence promises automated detection to enhance sensitivity and reproducibility.
Does artificial intelligence accurately detect tricuspid regurgitation in adults compared to clinician-interpreted echocardiography?
Meta-Analysis
Does artificial intelligence accurately detect tricuspid regurgitation in adults compared to clinician-interpreted echocardiography?
Effect estimate: AUROC 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92)
Artificial intelligence demonstrates promising diagnostic accuracy for detecting tricuspid regurgitation, potentially standardizing early detection and triage.
May aid standardization of tricuspid regurgitation detection to reduce underdiagnosis; confirms high accuracy across echocardiography studies despite heterogeneity.
Background Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common valvular heart disease affecting 0.55%–1.6% of adults, rising to 5%–8% in those over 75 years, often secondary to left‐sided pathology or pulmonary hypertension. Moderate‐to‐severe TR independently predicts mortality and heart failure hospitalization, yet underdiagnosis persists due to echocardiography's operator dependence and variability. Artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), promises automated detection to enhance sensitivity and reproducibility. This systematic review and meta‐analysis synthesizes evidence on AI's diagnostic performance for TR using echocardiographic or alternative modalities. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO from inception to August 2025, without language restrictions. Eligibility used PICOS: adults with TR evaluation; AI/ML index tests; clinician‐interpreted echocardiography reference; outcomes, including AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity. Data extraction and quality assessment by two reviewers; random‐effects meta‐analysis for pooled estimates; heterogeneity via I 2 ; certainty per GRADE. Results Eight studies were included. Pooled AUROC was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86–0.92) for TR detection. Echocardiography‐based models showed sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.81–0.90), specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.73–0.95), AUROC 0.92 (95% CI 0.89–0.94); ECG‐based models had AUROC 0.805. Substantial heterogeneity (I 2 > 90%) arose from modalities and reference standards; GRADE certainty moderate due to retrospective designs and limited external validation. Conclusions AI demonstrates promising diagnostic accuracy for TR, potentially standardizing early detection and triage. However, heterogeneity and methodological gaps necessitate larger prospective, multicenter studies with standardized reporting (e.g., TRIPOD‐AI) to confirm clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eini et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Tricuspid regurgitation. Artificial intelligence (AI) models vs. Clinician-interpreted echocardiography was evaluated on Diagnostic performance for TR detection (AUROC) (AUROC 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.92). Artificial intelligence models demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of tricuspid regurgitation, yielding a pooled AUROC of 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: