Back

Automated echocardiographic measurements for longitudinal monitoring of ATTR cardiomyopathy: agreement and repeatability analysis

Walser, A.; Clerc, O. F.; Mork, C.; Flammer, A. J.; Myhre, P. L.; Schwotzer, R.; Graeni, C.; Ruschitzka, F.; Tanner, F. C.; Benz, D. C.

2026-04-07 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.04.07.26349280 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Detection of disease progression is key to personalize treatment strategies in transthyretin cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), particularly with emerging therapies. Echocardiography can detect subtle longitudinal changes but is limited by operator dependence. This study evaluates agreement and reproducibility of fully automated, AI-assisted echocardiographic measurements under real-world conditions. Methods: This retrospective study included 62 patients with ATTR-CM undergoing 178 serial annual echocardiograms assessed by a reference cardiologist, a second cardiologist, a novice reader, and a fully automated AI algorithm (Us2.ai). Interrater agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Intrarater variability for human readers was derived from repeated blinded measurements, with limits of agreement (LoA = mean difference +/- 1.96 x SD) defining the smallest detectable change. AI repeatability was assessed using within-study pairwise differences. Results: AI showed moderate agreement with the reference cardiologist for IVSd and LVEDV (ICC 0.65 and 0.51), with biases of -1.9 mm and -39 mL, respectively. Interrater agreement between cardiologists was good (ICC 0.79 and 0.84) with minimal bias (-0.2 mm and +3 mL). Intrarater variability was moderate to excellent for both cardiologists (LoA 3.0 mm and 43 mL for the reference cardiologist; 2.7 mm and 31 mL for the second cardiologist). AI demonstrated comparable repeatability (LoA 3.6 mm and 37 mL), while the novice showed higher variability (5.1 mm and 61 mL). Conclusion: AI-based measurements demonstrated repeatability comparable to experienced cardiologists. Despite moderate agreement and systematic differences in volumetric assessments, their reproducibility supports automated analysis for longitudinal echocardiographic monitoring.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 5%
10.6%
3
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.4%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
5
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.9%
6
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
7
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
9
Frontiers in Physiology
93 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
10
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
11
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
12
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.8%
13
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
14
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
15
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
16
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
17
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
18
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
19
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
20
JACC: Basic to Translational Science
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
21
Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
22
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
23
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
24
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
25
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
26
EBioMedicine
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
27
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology
38 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
28
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.7%
29
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%