Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42571809

AI echo INSIGHT study: A prospective blinded randomized trial of artificial intelligence echocardiogram interpretation.

Keane K Lee·Niranjan Kumar·Sahir Eusuff·Milos Vukadinovic·Hirotaka Ieki·Mason J Moore·Andrew P Ambrosy·Alan S Go·James Jang·Howard Dinh·Ivy A Ku·Vincent Liu·David Ouyang·Brian Claggett·Bryan He
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is the most commonly performed cardiac imaging modality with over 30 million studies annually. Demand for timely expert interpretation continues to outpace capacity, creating diagnostic delays and inter-observer variability that impact patient care. Recent research has suggested computer vision artificial intelligence (AI) models can generate accurate preliminary comprehensive TTE reports, however, prospective evaluation is needed to determine whether AI-assisted TTE interpretation can improve clinician efficiency while preserving diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: AI ECHO INSIGHT is a prospective randomized blinded clinical trial conducted at Kaiser Permanente Northern California that will evaluate 1200 historical TTE studies (1000 consecutive unselected studies plus 200 with moderate or greater valvular disease) interpreted using three workflows: (1) AI-generated preliminary report finalized by a blinded cardiologist (AI-assisted); (2) cardiologist-generated preliminary report finalized by a blinded cardiologist (cardiologist-assisted); and (3) sonographer-generated preliminary report finalized by a blinded cardiologist (sonographer-assisted). The primary outcome is the rate of substantial change between preliminary and final reports, comparing the AI-assisted workflow to the pooled cardiologist-assisted and sonographer-assisted workflows. Secondary outcomes include cardiologist interpretation time for report finalization, superiority testing for diagnostic accuracy, and reporting consistency. CONCLUSION: AI ECHO INSIGHT is a prospective randomized blinded clinical trial evaluating the clinical impact of AI-assisted TTE interpretation on diagnostic accuracy, cardiologist efficiency, and reporting consistency in real-world echocardiography workflows. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT07229300.

Explore related subjects

HumansArtificial IntelligenceProspective StudiesEchocardiographyImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedArtificial intelligenceClinical workflowComputer visionDeep learningJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Keane K Lee, Niranjan Kumar, Sahir Eusuff, Milos Vukadinovic, Hirotaka Ieki, Mason J Moore, Andrew P Ambrosy, Alan S Go, James Jang, Howard Dinh, Ivy A Ku, Vincent Liu, David Ouyang, Brian Claggett, Bryan He. 2026-08-09. AI echo INSIGHT study: A prospective blinded randomized trial of artificial intelligence echocardiogram interpretation.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2026.108431

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial resourceArtificial Intelligence subjectDeep Learning subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectRandomized controlled trials study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence-supported double reading in European population breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective programs.

BACKGROUND: Most European population mammography screening programs rely on double reading with arbitration, a model that delivers mortality benefit but is increasingly challenged by radiologist workload, variable specificity, and interval cancers. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being evaluated to support or optimize these established European screening pathways. PURPOSE: To synthesize prospective or program-embedded evaluations of AI conducted within European-style population screening programs and to estimate exploratory program-level absolute risk differences (RDs) per 1000 examinations for cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prespecified, focused evidence synthesis of three large studies embedded within routine population screening programs operating under European-relevant workflows: MASAI (randomized AI-supported risk triage within a national program), ScreenTrustCAD (prospective paired-reader evaluation with AI as an independent reader in a double-reading framework), and PRAIM (nationwide decision-referral implementation). Outcomes were harmonized as AI-control RDs per 1000 examinations. Random-effects pooling used Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman models. For the paired-reader design, sensitivity analyses applied a Kish effective sample-size approach across plausible within-examination correlations (ρ = 0.3-0.8). Positive predictive value (PPV) and workflow/time outcomes were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Across 597,419 examinations, the pooled CDR RD was +0.9 per 1000 (95% CI -0.0 to +1.8; I2 ≈ 12%), consistent with a modest directional increase with borderline statistical uncertainty. The pooled recall RD was -0.6 per 1000 (95% CI -3.1 to +2.1; I2 ≈ 41-43%), indicating no consistent recall increase across screening programs. Where reported, PPV was higher with AI-supported screening. Efficiency signals included 44.3% fewer total readings in MASAI and shorter reading times for AI-normal examinations in PRAIM; in PRAIM, a program-level safety-net mechanism recovered 204 cancers that would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSION: In European population screening programs characterized by double reading and arbitration, prospective program-embedded evidence suggests that AI integration may yield a small absolute increase in cancer detection (≈1/1000) without a consistent increase in recall, alongside improved PPV and efficiency signals. These findings suggestAI primarily as a complementary reader within European screening workflows, with implementation requiring explicit quality assurance and monitoring of interval cancers and stage distribution.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence for dental caries detection: An umbrella review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a tool to improve dental caries detection across imaging modalities; however, its clinical value remains uncertain. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise systematic reviews evaluating AI for caries detection and diagnosis. An umbrella review was conducted following PRIOR guidance (PROSPERO CRD420261340728). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to 15 March 2026. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and overlap of primary studies was quantified using the corrected covered area (CCA). Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which five reported diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses using bivariate or HSROC models. Across these meta-analyses, pooled sensitivity ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.85 to 0.91. Most systems were based on deep learning models applied to bitewing radiographs and intraoral photographs. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in imaging modalities, lesion thresholds, analytical tasks, and evaluation metrics. In addition, a high degree of overlap across reviews and recurrent methodological limitations, including reliance on retrospective datasets, limited external validation, and inconsistent reporting, substantially weaken the reliability of the evidence. Although AI models demonstrate high diagnostic performance under experimental conditions, current evidence does not support their use as stand-alone diagnostic tools. Their clinical applicability remains limited, and implementation should be restricted to decision-support contexts until robust prospective validation demonstrates meaningful impact on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Dental Caries↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence (AI) uses in stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS): diagnosis with brain metastasis (BM) - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) are the most common intracranial tumors in adults, and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a mainstay of management. However, several diagnostic challenges persist in the SRS pathway, particularly the differentiation of radiation necrosis (RN) from true tumor progression, which conventional MRI and even advanced imaging techniques often cannot reliably resolve. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer the potential to address these diagnostic limitations. This systematic review synthesizes current literature on AI applications for MRI-based diagnostic decision support in BM patients undergoing SRS, with a focus on radiomics and deep learning tools for distinguishing RN from progression, classifying molecular and histologic subtypes, and predicting treatment response. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched using a targeted query combining terms related to AI, brain metastasis, diagnosis or imaging, and SRS. After screening 483 records and applying strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, 18 studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included. Data were extracted on study design, cohort characteristics, imaging modality, AI methodology, validation strategy, and reported diagnostic performance. RESULTS: Among the 18 included studies, AI models demonstrated strong performance across diagnostic tasks in the BM-SRS pathway. The differentiation of RN from true tumor progression was the most extensively studied application, addressed by 14 of 18 studies, with reported AUCs ranging from 0.71 to 0.94. Support vector machines, random-forest ensembles, convolutional neural networks, and transformer-based multimodal architectures were widely used. The literature evolved from single-sequence radiomic classifiers in 2018 to multimodal deep learning frameworks fusing imaging with clinical and genomic data in 2025. Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI was the dominant imaging input, and texture-based radiomic features (GLCM, GLSZM, GLDM, and wavelet-derived features) were the most consistently predictive. The highest-performing models reached AUCs of 0.85-0.91 through multimodal integration of imaging with clinical and genomic features, and consistently outperformed expert neuroradiologist read on matched cases. Remaining studies addressed longitudinal segmentation-based detection of local failure and adverse radiation effects, BRAF mutation status in melanoma BM, early Gamma Knife treatment response, and primary tumor histology classification, with more variable performance. CONCLUSION: AI models, particularly those integrating MRI-derived radiomic features with clinical and genomic data, show high accuracy in supporting diagnostic decisions for BM patients treated with SRS. The post-SRS differentiation of radiation necrosis from true tumor progression has reached the greatest level of maturity and is closest to clinical translation, with potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies, personalize surveillance intervals, and rationalize treatment-pathway decisions. Other diagnostic applications, including molecular subtyping and primary tumor histology classification, remain exploratory and require further multicenter validation. Integration of AI tools into multidisciplinary tumor-board workflows, combined with prospective validation and standardized reporting, will be essential to realize the full clinical benefits of AI in SRS for brain metastases.

Humans↗