Echocardiography is an integral part of the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. The use and application of artificial intelligence (AI) is a rapidly expanding field in medicine to improve consistency and reduce interobserver variability. AI can be successfully applied to echocardiography in addressing variance during image acquisition and interpretation. Furthermore, AI and machine learning can aid in the diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease. In the realm of echocardiography, accurate interpretation is largely dependent on the subjective knowledge of the operator. Echocardiography is burdened by the high dependence on the level of experience of the operator, to a greater extent than other imaging modalities like computed tomography, nuclear imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging. AI technologies offer new opportunities for echocardiography to produce accurate, automated, and more consistent interpretations. This review discusses machine learning as a subfield within AI in relation to image interpretation and how machine learning can improve the diagnostic performance of echocardiography. This review also explores the published literature outlining the value of AI and its potential to improve patient care.

Right ventricular (RV) pacing is the main treatment modality for patients with advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. Chronic RV pacing can cause cardiac systolic dysfunction and heart failure (HF). In this review, we discuss studies that have shown deleterious effects of chronic RV pacing on systolic cardiac function causing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCM), heart failure (HF), HF hospitalization, atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiac mortality. RV apical pacing is the most widely used and studied. Adverse effects of RV pacing appear to be directly related to pacing burden and are worse in patients with pre-existing left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Chronic RV pacing is also associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Mechanisms, risk factors, clinical and echocardiographic features, and strategies to minimize RV pacing-induced cardiac dysfunction are discussed in light of the latest data. Studies on biventricular (Bi-V) pacing upgrade in patients who develop RV PiCM, use of alternate RV pacing sites, de novo Bi-V pacing, and physiologic pacing using HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area (LBBA) pacing in patients with an anticipated high RV pacing burden are discussed.

Objective: To develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that can accurately extract headache frequency from free‐text clinical notes. Background: Headache frequency, defined as the number of days with any headache in a month (or 4 weeks), remains a key parameter in the evaluation of treatment response to migraine preventive medications. However, due to the variations and inconsistencies in documentation by clinicians, significant challenges exist to accurately extract headache frequency from the electronic health record (EHR) by traditional NLP algorithms. Methods: This was a retrospective cross‐sectional study with patients identified from two tertiary headache referral centers, Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Rochester. All neurology consultation notes written by 15 specialized clinicians (11 headache specialists and 4 nurse practitioners) between 2012 and 2022 were extracted and 1915 notes were used for model fine‐tuning (90%) and testing (10%). We employed four different NLP frameworks: (1) ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) regression model, (2) Generative Pre‐Trained Transformer‐2 (GPT‐2) Question Answering (QA) model zero‐shot, (3) GPT‐2 QA model few‐shot training fine‐tuned on clinical notes, and (4) GPT‐2 generative model few‐shot training fine‐tuned on clinical notes to generate the answer by considering the context of included text. Results: The mean (standard deviation) headache frequency of our training and testing datasets were 13.4 (10.9) and 14.4 (11.2), respectively. The GPT‐2 generative model was the best‐performing model with an accuracy of 0.92 (0.91, 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and R ² score of 0.89 (0.87, 0.90, 95% CI), and all GPT‐2–based models outperformed the ClinicalBERT model in terms of exact matching accuracy. Although the ClinicalBERT regression model had the lowest accuracy of 0.27 (0.26, 0.28), it demonstrated a high R ² score of 0.88 (0.85, 0.89), suggesting the ClinicalBERT model can reasonably predict the headache frequency within a range of ≤ ± 3 days, and the R ² score was higher than the GPT‐2 QA zero‐shot model or GPT‐2 QA model few‐shot training fine‐tuned model. Conclusion: We developed a robust information extraction model based on a state‐of‐the‐art large language model, a GPT‐2 generative model that can extract headache frequency from EHR free‐text clinical notes with high accuracy and R ² score. It overcame several challenges related to different ways clinicians document headache frequency that were not easily achieved by traditional NLP models. We also showed that GPT‐2–based frameworks outperformed ClinicalBERT in terms of accuracy in extracting headache frequency from clinical notes. To facilitate research in the field, we released the GPT‐2 generative model and inference code with open‐source license of community use in GitHub. Additional fine‐tuning of the algorithm might be required when applied to different health‐care systems for various clinical use cases.