Key result
Real-time AI guidance fails to reduce FoCUS acquisition time compared to unguided scanning.
Why the study?
Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is widely used in acute care, but evidence for real-time artificial intelligence (AI) guidance in resident-performed FoCUS is limited.
Does real-time AI guidance reduce acquisition time and improve the success rate of acquiring diagnostic-quality basic FoCUS views in medical residents?
RCT (n=19)
Randomized crossover
No
Does real-time AI guidance reduce acquisition time and improve the success rate of acquiring diagnostic-quality basic FoCUS views in medical residents?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this pilot randomized crossover trial, real-time AI guidance did not significantly reduce acquisition time or improve the overall success rate for basic focused cardiac ultrasound views among residents, though it did improve acquisition success for certain advanced apical views and increased overall resident confidence.
Background Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is widely used in acute care, yet evidence for real-time artificial intelligence (AI) guidance in resident-performed FoCUS is limited. Objectives We conducted a single-center pilot randomized crossover trial to evaluate whether real-time AI guidance reduces residents’ time to acquire diagnostic-quality FoCUS views, improves image acquisition success, and changes self-reported confidence. Methods Participants were recruited at the [remove] Hospital. Each resident performed FoCUS under two conditions with real-time AI guidance (AI+) and without (AI−). Primary outcomes were acquisition time and the success rate of acquiring diagnostic-quality images for the five basic FoCUS views. Secondary outcomes were acquisition time and success rate across a total of 10 views, consisting of the basic views plus five additional advanced FoCUS views. We also evaluated changes in self-reported confidence using a questionnaire. Results Nineteen residents were included in the analysis. For the five views, total acquisition time did not differ significantly between AI+ and AI− (192.9 ± 75.8 s vs. 125.0 ± 41.7 s; mean difference, −67.9 s [95% CI, −138.7 to 2.9]; P = 0.058). The success rate of acquisition showed no significant differences. For the ten views, AI guidance increased success rate for apical two- and five-chamber views (37% to 84%; P = 0.016, 47% to 84%; P = 0.023). Self-reported confidence improved overall, but not for four- and five-chamber views. Conclusions Real-time AI guidance did not significantly reduce the time to acquire basic FoCUS views, nor did it significantly improve the success rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shinato et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Resident-performed focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) (n=19). Real-time artificial intelligence (AI) guidance for FoCUS vs. FoCUS without real-time AI guidance was evaluated on Total acquisition time and success rate of acquiring diagnostic-quality images for the five basic FoCUS views (MD -67.9 s, 95% CI -138.7 to 2.9, p=0.058). Real-time AI guidance did not reduce total acquisition time for five basic FoCUS views compared with no guidance.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: