Automated assessment of right heart function by artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.9 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Journal of Radiology Open Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-08 DOI:10.1016/j.ejro.2025.100713
Pooya Eini , Homa serpoush , Mohammad Rezayee , Jason Tremblay
{"title":"Automated assessment of right heart function by artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Pooya Eini ,&nbsp;Homa serpoush ,&nbsp;Mohammad Rezayee ,&nbsp;Jason Tremblay","doi":"10.1016/j.ejro.2025.100713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Accurate assessment of right ventricular (RV) size and function is critical for managing cardiac diseases but is challenged by the limitations of traditional echocardiography. Artificial intelligence (AI) models offer potential for improving RV assessment, yet their diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for predicting RV size and function, synthesizing performance metrics and assessing evidence quality.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we searched 5 databases up to June 2025 using MeSH and Emtree terms for \"Artificial Intelligence,\" \"Right Ventricular Function,\" and \"Right Ventricular Dysfunction.\" Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed quality using PROBAST+AI. Pooled estimates were calculated using STATA 18 with MIDAS and METADATA modules. Heterogeneity was explored via subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From 25 studies, 18 provided data for meta-analysis, yielding a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.73–0.92), specificity of 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.72–0.88), and AUROC of 0.89 (95 % CI: 0.86–0.92). High heterogeneity (I² = 71.63 % for sensitivity, 73.51 % for specificity) was partially explained by algorithm type and study country. The GRADE assessment indicated moderate certainty of evidence due to heterogeneity and bias in 25 % of studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>AI models show promising diagnostic accuracy for RV assessment, but high heterogeneity and moderate evidence certainty necessitate cautious interpretation and further research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38076,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Radiology Open","volume":"16 ","pages":"Article 100713"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Radiology Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352047725000802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Accurate assessment of right ventricular (RV) size and function is critical for managing cardiac diseases but is challenged by the limitations of traditional echocardiography. Artificial intelligence (AI) models offer potential for improving RV assessment, yet their diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of AI models for predicting RV size and function, synthesizing performance metrics and assessing evidence quality.

Methods

Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we searched 5 databases up to June 2025 using MeSH and Emtree terms for "Artificial Intelligence," "Right Ventricular Function," and "Right Ventricular Dysfunction." Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed quality using PROBAST+AI. Pooled estimates were calculated using STATA 18 with MIDAS and METADATA modules. Heterogeneity was explored via subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot.

Results

From 25 studies, 18 provided data for meta-analysis, yielding a pooled sensitivity of 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.73–0.92), specificity of 0.81 (95 % CI: 0.72–0.88), and AUROC of 0.89 (95 % CI: 0.86–0.92). High heterogeneity (I² = 71.63 % for sensitivity, 73.51 % for specificity) was partially explained by algorithm type and study country. The GRADE assessment indicated moderate certainty of evidence due to heterogeneity and bias in 25 % of studies.

Conclusion

AI models show promising diagnostic accuracy for RV assessment, but high heterogeneity and moderate evidence certainty necessitate cautious interpretation and further research.
用人工智能自动评估右心功能:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
背景:准确评估右心室(RV)的大小和功能对心脏疾病的治疗至关重要,但传统超声心动图的局限性对其提出了挑战。人工智能(AI)模型为改进RV评估提供了潜力,但其诊断准确性仍不确定。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了人工智能模型在预测RV大小和功能、综合性能指标和评估证据质量方面的诊断准确性。方法按照PRISMA指南,使用MeSH和Emtree检索截至2025年6月的5个数据库中的“人工智能”、“右心室功能”和“右心室功能障碍”。两名审稿人筛选研究,提取数据并使用PROBAST+AI评估质量。使用带有MIDAS和METADATA模块的STATA 18计算汇总估计值。通过亚组分析、meta回归和敏感性分析探讨异质性。采用漏斗图评估发表偏倚。结果25项研究中,18项提供了荟萃分析的数据,合并敏感性为0.85(95 % CI: 0.73-0.92),特异性为0.81(95 % CI: 0.72-0.88), AUROC为0.89(95 % CI: 0.86-0.92)。高异质性(敏感性I²= 71.63 %,特异性I²= 73.51 %)部分由算法类型和研究国家解释。GRADE评估显示,在25% %的研究中,由于异质性和偏倚,证据具有中等确定性。结论人工智能模型对RV评估具有较好的诊断准确性,但异质性高,证据确定性不高,需要谨慎解释和进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Radiology Open
European Journal of Radiology Open Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
51 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书