ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2017
Computer-aided Detection Fidelity of Pulmonary Nodules in Chest Radiograph.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence applications in personalizing lung cancer management: state of the art and future perspectives.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Can Artificial Intelligence Replace Humans for Detecting Lung Tumors on Radiographs? An Examination of Resected Malignant Lung Tumors.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Generative Adversarial Network (Generative Artificial Intelligence) in Pediatric Radiology: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A systematic approach to deep learning-based nodule detection in chest radiographs.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Review on chest pathogies detection systems using deep learning techniques.Artificial intelligence review · 2023Article
- Current and emerging artificial intelligence applications in chest imaging: a pediatric perspective.Pediatric radiology · 2022Review
- Observational
- Putting artificial intelligence (AI) on the spot: machine learning evaluation of pulmonary nodules.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Deep learning-based detection system for multiclass lesions on chest radiographs: comparison with observer readings.European radiology · 2020Article
- Deep learning for chest radiograph diagnosis: A retrospective comparison of the CheXNeXt algorithm to practicing radiologists.PLoS medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe most ubiquitous chest diagnostic method is the chest radiograph. A common radiographic finding, quite often incidental, is the nodular pulmonary lesion. The detection of small lesions out of complex parenchymal structure is a daily clinical challenge. In this study, we investigate the efficacy of the computer-aided detection (CAD) software package SoftView™ 2.4A for bone suppression and OnGuard™ 5.2 (Riverain Technologies, Miamisburg, OH, USA) for automated detection of pulmonary nodules in chest radiographs. SUBJECTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated a dataset of 100 posteroanterior chest radiographs with pulmonary nodular lesions ranging from 5 to 85 mm. All nodules were confirmed with a consecutive computed tomography scan and histologically classified as 75% malignant. The number of detected lesions by observation in unprocessed images was compared to the number and dignity of CAD-detected lesions in bone-suppressed images (BSIs).
resultsSoftView™ BSI does not affect the objective lesion-to-background contrast. OnGuard™ has a stand-alone sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 58% for nodular lesion detection in chest radiographs. The false positive rate is 0.88/image and the false negative (FN) rate is 0.35/image. From the true positive lesions, 20% were proven benign and 80% were malignant. FN lesions were 47% benign and 53% malignant.
conclusionWe conclude that CAD does not qualify for a stand-alone standard of diagnosis. The use of CAD accompanied with a critical radiological assessment of the software suggested pattern appears more realistic. Accordingly, it is essential to focus on studies assessing the quality-time-cost profile of real-time (as opposed to retrospective) CAD implementation in clinical diagnostics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.