An observational study in Heart, Ultrasound and Cardiac Ultrasound, sponsored by EchoNous Inc.. Active, not recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-18.
Sponsored by EchoNous Inc. · Observational
The purpose of this study is to supplement prior Kosmos Trio Guidance performance testing conducted under ECHO-020 Kosmos Guidance, Grading, and Capture Performance Evaluation Protocol. The Kosmos Trio Guidance algorithm is designed to provide guidance to help novice scanners acquire images and videos during ultrasound scanning of three cardiac views (Parastenal Long Axis, Apical 4 Chamber, and Apical 2 Chamber) with Kosmos Trio. The study will divide the guidance cues not evaluated sufficiently in the ECHO-020 study into four categories: 1) corrective guidance, 2) incorrect scanning window, 3) incorrect probe orientation, and 4) low confidence prediction. For each guidance cue evaluated in this study, expert annotators will review two clips: one suboptimal view, collected when the probe is positioned at an incorrect location; and one guided view, captured after the sonographer followed the probe motion cue displayed by the system. Annotators will review each pair of clips and respond indicating either i) Yes, the guided clip demonstrates the appropriate correction from the suboptimal view; ii) No, the guided clip does not demonstrate the appropriate correction from the suboptimal view; or iii) Unevaluable, the guided clip is technically inadequate for assessment. For each category of guidance cues, the outcome measure will be the rate at which annotators respond "Yes." Finally, this study will also evaluate the Kosmos Trio Auto-Capture algorithm's ability to detect and capture a diagnostic-quality image. Annotators will rate clips captured by Kosmos Trio Auto-Capture on an ACEP-based image quality scale. The outcome measure will be the image quality score. The study design involves the compilation of de-identified retrospective cardiac clips acquired using the Kosmos diagnostic ultrasound system. This data was collected for two previous studies; no additional data will be collected from previous study participants for the purposes of this study.
2,135 studies on the registry are indexed under Heart Diseases; 252 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 81 is below the median of 350 across 592 observational studies indexed under Heart Diseases.
Browse Heart Diseases studies →EchoNous Inc. is the lead sponsor of 6 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
The study used retrospective datasets from 2 sources: ECHO-020 Kosmos Guidance, Grading, and Capture Performance Evaluation study, and ECHO-025 Kosmos Guidance Performance Evaluation study. Both datasets comprise fully de-identified, retrospective, echocardiographic clips acquired using the Kosmos diagnostic ultrasound system.
Data collection for both studies was performed at EchoNous headquarters in Redmond, Washington. Source data was collected targeting a balanced representation of demographics and clinical characteristics (including gender and BMI) to ensure the generalizability of study findings.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
BMI (body mass index)
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants included in Project 1, Category 1: Corrective Guidance
Device: Category 1: Corrective Guidance
Participants included in Project 2, Category 2: Incorrect Scanning Window
Device: Category 2: Incorrect Scanning Window
Participants included in Project 3, Category 3: Incorrect Probe Orientation
Device: Category 3: Incorrect Probe Orientation
Participants included in Project 4, Category 4: Low Confidence Prediction
Device: Category 4: Low Confidence Prediction
Participants included in Project 5, Auto-Capture Frame-Level Re-annotation
Device: Auto-Capture Frame-Level Re-Annotation
When the system detects that the probe is near the correct cardiac window but requires a specific directional adjustment, it displays a Category 1 - Corrective Guidance message. Each case in this project consists of two clips: Clip A - Suboptimal View: captured after the sonographer has intentionally moved the probe to a prescribed off-target position; and Clip B - Guided View: captured after the sonographer followed the Category 1 probe motion cue displayed by the system. For each pair of clips, annotators will be asked when Comparing Clip A and Clip B whether following the Category 1 corrective guidance instruction produces a discernible improvement in overall image quality. They will provide an answer of Yes, No, or Unevaluable.
When the system detects that the probe is positioned at a fundamentally incorrect anatomical location relative to the target cardiac view, it displays a Category 2 - Incorrect Scanning Window message. Each case in this project consists of two clips: Clip A - Suboptimal View: captured after the sonographer has intentionally a clearly incorrect anatomical location; and Clip B - Guided View: captured after the sonographer followed the Category 2 window-navigation cue and moved to the correct scanning window displayed by the system. For each pair of clips, annotators will be asked when Comparing Clip A and Clip B whether following the Category 2 guidance instruction produces a clip in the correct scanning window. They will provide an answer of Yes, No, or Unevaluable.
When the system detects that the probe has been rotated 180° around its longitudinal axis, producing a laterally mirrored image, it displays a Category 3 - Incorrect Probe Orientation message. Each case in this project consists of two clips: Clip A - Suboptimal View: with the probe rotated 180° at the correct cardiac window, producing a mirrored image; and Clip B - Guided View: sonographer corrected the probe orientation in response to the Category 3 message displayed by the system. For each pair of clips, annotators will be asked when Comparing Clip A and Clip B whether following the Category 3 guidance instruction produced a clip that is oriented correctly. They will provide an answer of Yes, No, or Unevaluable.
When the system's confidence in the current image is insufficient to issue a specific directional correction, it displays a Category 4 - Low Confidence Prediction message. Each case in this project consists of two clips: Clip A - Suboptimal View: with the probe rotated 180° at the correct cardiac window, producing a mirrored image; and Clip B - Guided View: sonographer corrected the probe orientation in response to the Category 3 message displayed by the system. For each pair of clips, annotators will be asked when Comparing Clip A and Clip B whether following the Category 3 guidance instruction produced a clip that is oriented correctly. They will provide an answer of Yes, No, or Unevaluable.
The Kosmos Trio Auto-Capture feature automatically triggers clip recording when it detects that a diagnostic quality image has been achieved. Each case in this project is a single captured clip. No comparison clip is provided. The view (PLAX, A4C, or A2C) is indicated for each case. For each frame in this clip, annotators will be asked to assign a quality grade using the ACEP 1-5 image quality scale (where 1 represents a frame in which the relevant anatomy is not visualized or identifiable, and 5 represents a frame in which the image is sharp and the relevant anatomy is well visualized and present in the frame) to each frame.
Guidance Algorithm Accuracy
Guidance algorithm accuracy will be evaluated using Positive Predictive Value (PPV), a calculation that compares the diagnostic quality between the suboptimal view following an indicated probe movement and the guided view following the Guidance correction of the probe location. PPV will be calculated for each cardiac view included in this study (PLAX, A4C, and A2C), across all four Guidance categories. PPV is calculated by dividing the number of True Positives (the number of trial pairs in which the post-action clip demonstrates that following the guidance instruction produced the intended improvement for the applicable guidance category) by the number of True Positives plus the number of False Positives (the number of trial pairs in which the post-action clip does not demonstrate the expected improvement for the applicable category). Success is defined as a PPV \> 0.80 and 95% CI lower bound \> 0.80 for each view. All three views must independently satisfy this criteria.
Time frame: Post data acquisition (2 months)
Performance of Auto-Capture
The accuracy of Auto-Capture will be evaluated using Positive Predictive Value (PPV), a calculation that provides the proportion of clips captured using Auto-Capture that contain a sufficient proportion of diagnostic-quality frames to be considered clinically acceptable. PPV is calculated by dividing the number of True Positives (the number of clips with at least one full cardiac cycle of frames is determined to be diagnostic by expert reviewers, in accordance with the ACEP-based grading scale) by the number of True Positives plus the number of False Positives (the number of clips that do not have at least one full cardiac cycle of frames is determined to be diagnostic by expert reviewers, in accordance with the ACEP-based grading scale). Success is defined as a PPV \> 0.80 and 95% CI lower bound \> 0.80.
Time frame: Post data acquisition (2 months)
Plan to share: Undecided — Publication decisions will be made at a later date.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Aug 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
EchoNous Inc.