ArticleEmergency radiology2019
Integration of fully automated computer-aided pulmonary nodule detection into CT pulmonary angiography studies in the emergency department: effect on workflow and diagnostic accuracy.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scientific evidence of commercial artificial intelligence products for pulmonary nodule assessment on CT scans: a systematic review.European radiology · 2026Article
- An AI deep learning algorithm for detecting pulmonary nodules on ultra-low-dose CT in an emergency setting: a reader study.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in lung cancer screening: A real-world study in a Chinese physical examination population.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Impact of an AI software on the diagnostic performance and reading time for the detection of cerebral aneurysms on time of flight MR-angiography.Neuroradiology · 2024Article
- ExtRanFS: An Automated Lung Cancer Malignancy Detection System Using Extremely Randomized Feature Selector.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the feasibility of implementing fully automated computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for detection of pulmonary nodules on CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) studies in emergency setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsCTPA of 48 emergency patients was retrospectively reviewed. Fully automated CAD nodule detection was performed at the scanner and results were automatically submitted to PACS. A third-year radiology resident (RAD1) and a cardiothoracic radiologist with 6 years' experience (RAD2) reviewed the scans independently to detect pulmonary nodules in two different sessions 8 weeks apart: session 1, CAD was reviewed first and then all images were reviewed; session 2, CAD was reviewed last after all images were reviewed. Time spent by RAD to evaluate image sets was measured for each case. Fisher's exact test and t test were used.
resultsThere were 17 male and 31 female patients with mean ± SD age of 48.7 ± 16.4 years. Using CAD at the beginning was associated with lower average reading time for both readers. However, difference in reading time did not reach statistical significance for RAD1 (RAD1 94.6 s vs. 102.7 s, P > 0.05; RAD2 61.1 s vs. 76.5 s, P < 0.05). Using CAD at the end significantly increased rate of RAD1 and RAD2 nodule detection by 34% (2.52 vs. 2.12 nodule/scan, P < 0.05) and 27% (2.23 vs. 1.81 nodule/scan, P < 0.05), respectively.
conclusionRoutine utilization of CAD in emergency setting is feasible and can improve detection rate of pulmonary nodules significantly. Different methods of incorporating CAD in detecting pulmonary nodules can improve both the rate of detection and interpretation speed.
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.