ROTEM Interpretation AI vs Experts (ROTEMAI)

March 25, 2026 updated by: Michal Kalina, Masarykova Nemocnice v Usti nad Labem, Krajska Zdravotni a.s.

Artificial Intelligence Versus Expert Interpretation of ROTEM: A Prospective Study of Agreement and Clinical Decision-Making

This prospective multicenter observational study aims to evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI)-based interpretation and expert interpretation of rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) findings in clinically relevant settings. ROTEM is widely used to guide hemostatic therapy in perioperative and critically ill patients, but its interpretation is complex and subject to interobserver variability.

The primary objective is to determine whether AI-based interpretation achieves agreement comparable to variability between expert clinicians. Secondary objectives include comparison of interpretation time, assessment of consistency of AI outputs, and evaluation of potential differences in clinical decision-making.

ROTEM datasets will be independently assessed by multiple expert anesthesiologists and by an AI-based model using standardized input. Agreement between methods and variability of interpretation will be analyzed.

The study aims to determine whether AI-assisted interpretation could serve as a reliable decision-support tool and reduce variability in ROTEM-guided clinical practice.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

This prospective multicenter observational study is designed to evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI)-based interpretation and expert interpretation of rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) findings, with a focus on clinical decision-making in critically ill patients.

ROTEM is a point-of-care viscoelastic method providing real-time information on coagulation, including clot formation, strength, and fibrinolysis. It is widely used to guide targeted hemostatic therapy in trauma, major surgery, and critical care. However, interpretation of ROTEM findings is complex and requires clinical expertise. Interobserver variability among clinicians may lead to inconsistent therapeutic decisions. Although algorithm-based approaches have been introduced, their implementation remains variable.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to standardize interpretation by integrating multiple ROTEM parameters and generating consistent recommendations. Previous studies have shown that machine learning models can predict clinical outcomes or transfusion requirements based on viscoelastic data. However, evidence on agreement between AI-based interpretation and expert interpretation, particularly in real-world clinical decision-making, remains limited.

The primary objective of this study is to determine whether AI-based interpretation achieves a level of agreement comparable to inter-expert variability in ROTEM interpretation. This study does not assume a single gold standard; instead, it evaluates agreement between methods, reflecting real-world clinical practice.

Secondary objectives include:

  • comparison of interpretation time between AI and expert clinicians,
  • assessment of consistency (intra-method variability) of AI compared to inter-expert variability,
  • evaluation of potential impact on clinical decision-making, including identification of coagulation abnormalities and proposed treatment strategies.

ROTEM measurements will be collected and presented in a standardized format, including graphical and numerical outputs. Each dataset will be independently evaluated by multiple expert anesthesiologists. The same datasets will be interpreted repeatedly by an AI-based large language model using a predefined standardized prompt, with multiple independent runs to assess intra-model variability.

For each ROTEM dataset, both experts and AI will assess:

  • presence of a coagulation disorder,
  • dominant underlying abnormality,
  • appropriate therapeutic intervention,
  • and recommended treatment dose.

Agreement between experts and AI, as well as inter-expert agreement, will be analyzed using appropriate statistical methods for categorical and continuous variables (e.g., kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients). Time required for interpretation will also be recorded and compared.

This study is not designed to determine the absolute correctness of interpretation, but to quantify agreement and variability between human experts and AI. By identifying clinically relevant discrepancies, the study aims to evaluate whether AI-assisted interpretation may serve as a reliable decision-support tool and reduce variability in ROTEM-guided hemostatic management.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

400

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

The study population will consist of adult patients undergoing rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) as part of routine clinical care in participating centers. Patients will be recruited from perioperative and intensive care settings, including major surgery, trauma, and critical illness, where assessment of coagulation status is clinically indicated.

This study reflects real-world practice, with no modification of standard care. The unit of analysis will be individual ROTEM measurements rather than individual patients, as repeated measurements may occur during clinical management.

Only ROTEM datasets with complete graphical and numerical outputs and meeting predefined quality criteria will be included.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

Adult patients (age ≥18 years)

  • ROTEM analysis performed using a ROTEM Sigma device as part of routine clinical care
  • Availability of complete ROTEM output (graphical and numerical data)
  • ROTEM measurement obtained in a clinical context where assessment of coagulation status is indicated (e.g., perioperative setting, trauma, or critical illness)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • ROTEM measurements performed using the HEPTEM channel
  • Incomplete or missing ROTEM data preventing standardized evaluation
  • ROTEM measurements obtained under non-standardized or technically unreliable conditions

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Patients indicated for thromboelastography.
Intensive care unit adult patients that are indicated for thromboelastography.
The thromboelastography record will be assessed by LLM based artificial intelligence.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Agreement between AI-based and expert interpretation of ROTEM findings
Time Frame: Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement (time required for interpretation and data recording).

Agreement between artificial intelligence (AI)-based interpretation and expert interpretation of ROTEM findings will be assessed and compared to inter-expert agreement. Agreement will be evaluated for predefined clinical decision outputs, including:

  • presence of coagulation disorder (yes/no),
  • identification of dominant coagulation abnormality (categorical),
  • selection of therapeutic intervention (categorical),
  • and recommended treatment dose (continuous).

Agreement will be quantified using appropriate statistical methods for categorical and continuous data (e.g., Cohen's/Fleiss' kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients).

Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement (time required for interpretation and data recording).

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Interpretation time
Time Frame: Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement.
Time required for interpretation of ROTEM findings by expert clinicians compared to AI-based interpretation. For experts, time will be measured from presentation of the ROTEM result to completion of responses. For AI, time will be measured from submission of the standardized query to completion of output generation.
Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement.
Consistency of interpretation (intra-method variability)
Time Frame: Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement
Variability of AI-based interpretation across repeated independent runs will be assessed and compared with inter-expert variability. Consistency will be evaluated for all predefined outputs (diagnosis, treatment, dosing).
Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement
Proportion of clinically discordant decisions
Time Frame: Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement

Proportion of cases in which AI-based interpretation differs from expert interpretation in clinically relevant outputs, including:

  • disagreement in diagnosis of coagulation disorder,
  • disagreement in selected treatment strategy,
  • or clinically relevant difference in recommended dose.
Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement
Inter-expert agreement
Time Frame: Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement
Agreement between individual expert clinicians in interpretation of ROTEM findings will be evaluated to define baseline interobserver variability and provide a reference for comparison with AI-based interpretation.
Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Potential treatment change
Time Frame: Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement
Proportion of disagreement between expert panel and LLM based AI that would lead to treatment change.
Up to 24 hours after ROTEM measurement

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

September 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

June 1, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

July 1, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

March 25, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 25, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

March 31, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 31, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 25, 2026

Last Verified

March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Coagulopathy

Clinical Trials on Large Language Model (LLM) artificial intelligence assesment

Subscribe