An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a localized dilation of the aorta to greater than 1.5 times its normal diameter. AAA is diagnosed if the diameter of the aorta is greater than 3cm, which is determined through imaging of the vessel. Elective repair before aneurysm rupture can significantly decrease mortality; thus, early detection is critical for AAA management. Despite increased point-of-care ultrasound (US) training in the medical community, the use of 2D ultrasonography is not yet ubiquitous. The AMI 9700 provides an automated way to screen for AAA at the bedside which allows for faster assessment in the emergency department (ED) compared to computed tomography (CT). This device may allow physicians to quickly detect AAA in acutely symptomatic patients, leading to decreased time to intervention and reduced mortality. Additionally, users may not need formal training in US to use the device. The primary objective of this study is to compare measurements of the abdominal aorta obtained using the AMI 9700 device with those obtained through CT imaging. A secondary objective of this study is to assess the ease of use of the AMI 9700 by comparing measurements obtained by US-trained and untrained physicians. US-trained physicians are defined as those who have completed or are currently enrolled in an US fellowship. This prospective study was conducted in the ED of North Shore University Hospital, a suburban, university-affiliated institution. A convenience sample was obtained, based on investigator availability, of patients 18 years and older undergoing an abdominal CT scan with intravenous contrast for abdominal or flank pain. Subjects received AMI 9700 scans by two user groups, US-trained and untrained physicians. The diameter of the abdominal aorta was measured at four distinct locations of the abdomen. The groups were blinded to each other's measurements, and the maximum diameter was used for comparison. The abdominal CT studies were viewed on a standard GE PACS image monitor, and the maximum diameter of the abdominal aorta was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, along with associated 95% exact binomial confidence intervals (CI). A total of 33 subjects received both AMI 9700 and abdominal CT scans. The number of abdominal aorta diameters greater than or equal to 3cm as measured by the AMI 9700 were 9 (27.3%) and 5 (15.2%) for the US-trained and untrained groups, respectively. The number of abdominal aorta diameters less than 3cm were 24 (72.7%) and 28 (84.8%) for the US-trained and untrained groups, respectively. For the abdominal CT studies, 2 (6.1%) aorta measurements were greater than or equal to 3cm, and 31 (93.9%) were less than 3cm. Sensitivity was 100% (95% CI: 22.4-100%) and 50% (95% CI: 1.3-98.7%) for the US-trained and untrained groups, respectively. Specificity was 75.9% (95% CI: 56.5-89.7%) and 84.6% (95% CI: 65.1-95.6%) for the US-trained and untrained groups, respectively. In the hands of a clinician with US training, the AMI 9700 was highly sensitive and may be an effective screening tool for AAA in symptomatic ED patients. While specificity was high, positive results should be followed by a formal US or CT to confirm and better characterize the abdominal aorta. Enrollment will continue to improve the CI and further evaluate the role of this device as a screening tool for untrained operators.