AI imaging reports comparable to the work of sonographers and cardiologists
Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated echocardiogram interpretations are comparable to preliminary assessments prepared by sonographers and cardiologists, according to new findings presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2026.
The study’s authors performed a randomized trial focused on AI- and human-generated preliminary reports for the same 1,200 echocardiograms. The average age was 69 years old, and 47% of patients were women. The sonographers and cardiologists preparing these preliminary reports had an average of 7.2 and 11.7 years of experience, respectively.
Cardiologists reviewed each preliminary report; they did not know if the reports were generated by AI or a human when they performed their review. The accuracy of each preliminary report was determined by tracking how often the cardiologist reviewer made changes.
Overall, cardiologists made changes to 50.6% of AI-generated reports and 49.7% of human-generated reports. This was close enough that the group viewed the AI-generated reports as being noninferior to human-generated reports.
The study also revealed that AI-generated preliminary reports resulted in much faster interpretations. It took an average of 4.6 minutes per echocardiogram when AI was involved, and 8.5 minutes on average without the AI’s assistance.
“We designed this study to capture even small differences between the preliminary reports and the cardiologists’ final interpretations, allowing us to take a careful look at how well AI performed in a rigorous scientific manner,” co-senior author Keane K. Lee, MD, MS, a cardiologist at Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Homestead Medical Center in Santa Clara, California, said in a statement. “Based on our prior work, we expected AI to demonstrate excellent accuracy, which was confirmed in this randomized trial. However, what surprised us was the extent to which using AI-generated reports reduced the time cardiologists needed to interpret echocardiograms.”
Lee added that “even a few minutes saved per interpretation” can make a big impact over time.
“For patients, this could potentially mean faster turnaround of results and more access to care, and for cardiologists, more time to spend with patients,” he said.
Lee also emphasized that AI is not a replacement for cardiologists.
“The cardiologist remains ultimately responsible for interpreting the echocardiogram and certifying the accuracy of the final report, even when AI assists with the process,” he said. “Moreover, the physician applies clinical judgment and knowledge of the patient to the final interpretation to develop a personalized care plan for each individual.”
Michael has more than 19 years of experience as a professional writer and editor. He has written at length about cardiology, radiology, artificial intelligence and other key healthcare topics.