Why the study?
The study investigated the feasibility of an intelligent handheld ultrasound device to assist non-expert general practitioners in detecting carotid plaques in community populations.
Does AI-assisted handheld ultrasound improve the diagnostic performance of non-expert general practitioners in detecting carotid plaques in community populations?
Does AI-assisted handheld ultrasound improve the diagnostic performance of non-expert general practitioners in detecting carotid plaques in community populations?
AI-assisted handheld ultrasound enables non-expert general practitioners to accurately and efficiently screen for carotid plaques in community settings, achieving diagnostic performance comparable to specialists.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May enable GP-led community CP screening; leaves open practice change pending multicenter validation of this Level 5 study.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an intelligent handheld ultrasound (US) device for assisting non-expert general practitioners (GPs) in detecting carotid plaques (CPs) in community populations. METHODS: This prospective parallel controlled trial recruited 111 consecutive community residents. All of them underwent examinations by non-expert GPs and specialist doctors using handheld US devices (setting A, setting B, and setting C). The results of setting C with specialist doctors were considered the gold standard. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and the features of CPs were measured and recorded. The diagnostic performance of GPs in distinguishing CPs was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Inter-observer agreement was compared using the intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC). Questionnaires were completed to evaluate clinical benefits. RESULTS: Among the 111 community residents, 80, 96, and 112 CPs were detected in settings A, B, and C, respectively. Setting B exhibited better diagnostic performance than setting A for detecting CPs (area under the curve, 0.856 vs. 0.749; P<0.01). Setting B had better consistency with setting C than setting A in CIMT measurement and the assessment of CPs (ICC, 0.731 to 0.923). Moreover, measurements in setting B required less time than the other two settings (44.59 seconds vs. 108.87 seconds vs. 126.13 seconds, both P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Using an intelligent handheld US device, GPs can perform CP screening and achieve a diagnostic capability comparable to that of specialist doctors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pei Sun (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: