Key result
Echo-DFCNN simultaneously assesses LVEF and GLS with an ICC of ~0.93 versus manual measurements.
Why the study?
Accurate echocardiographic assessment of LVEF and GLS is hampered by inter-observer variability and is time-consuming and labor-intensive.
Does the Echo-DFCNN automated AI model accurately and rapidly assess LVEF and GLS compared to manual echocardiographic and CMR measurements?
Observational (n=930)
Yes
Does the Echo-DFCNN automated AI model accurately and rapidly assess LVEF and GLS compared to manual echocardiographic and CMR measurements?
Effect estimate: ICC 0.927 (95% CI 0.894-0.950)
p-value: p=<0.0001
The Echo-DFCNN model provides accurate, automated, and simultaneous assessment of LVEF and GLS from echocardiograms, demonstrating strong agreement with manual and CMR measurements across different image qualities and machine types.
Supports automated echocardiography research; leaves open clinical adoption pending prospective validation.
Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) are essential for the diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and prognosis of cardiovascular disease. However, accurate assessments of LVEF and GLS by echocardiography are hampered by inter-observer variability, time-consuming, and labor-intensive. This study aimed to develop an automated method to accurately and rapidly assess LVEF and GLS. Based on the datasets of 500 patients (1,500 videos) from the internal center and 363 patients (1,089 videos) from four external centers, we successfully developed a dual-flow convolutional neural network called Echo-DFCNN, which allowed for synchronous acquisition of LVEF and GLS. We evaluated the performance of the Echo-DFCNN in a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) validation dataset composed of 67 patients. On the internal test dataset, the AI and manual measurements of LVEF demonstrated a median absolute error of 3.02% and a mean absolute error of 3.94%. AI-predicted LVEF showed good agreement with manually measured LVEF, with an ICC of 0.927, a bias of 0.89%, and a LOA of -10.91 to 12.69. For GLS, the median absolute error and mean absolute error between AI and manual measurements were 1.43% and 1.83%. AI-predicted GLS exhibited high agreement with manually measured GLS (ICC = 0.913; bias = -1.22%, LOA = -5.12 to 2.68). In addition, Echo-DFCNN maintained good performance when applied to external validation datasets. In the CMR validation dataset, the AI model showed good agreement with CMR measurements for both LVEF and GLS. Echo-DFCNN achieves simultaneous and precise assessment of LVEF and GLS in the study cohorts, demonstrating its potential for robust performance across a wide range of cardiac functions, different image qualities, and machine types.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease (n=930). Echo-DFCNN (Dual-flow convolutional neural network) vs. Manual measurement and commercial software (QLAB) was evaluated on Agreement between AI-predicted and manually measured Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) (ICC 0.927, 95% CI 0.894-0.950, p=<0.0001). Echo-DFCNN achieved simultaneous and precise assessment of LVEF and GLS, demonstrating high agreement with manual measurements (ICC 0.927 for LVEF and 0.913 for GLS).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: