ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Evaluate the performance of four artificial intelligence-aided diagnostic systems in identifying and measuring four types of pulmonary nodules.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Software with artificial intelligence-derived algorithms for detecting and analysing lung nodules in CT scans: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- AI in Lung Nodules on Chest CT: Retrospective, Real-World Assessment of AI in Clinical Practice.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Translating potential improvement in the precision and accuracy of lung nodule measurements on computed tomography scans by software derived from artificial intelligence into impact on clinical practice-a simulation study.BJR artificial intelligence · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to evaluate the performance of four artificial intelligence-aided diagnostic systems in identifying and measuring four types of pulmonary nodules.
methodsFour types of nodules were implanted in a commercial lung phantom. The phantom was scanned with multislice spiral computed tomography, after which four systems (A, B, C, D) were used to identify the nodules and measure their volumes.
resultsThe relative volume error (RVE) of system A was the lowest for all nodules, except for small ground glass nodules (SGGNs). System C had the smallest RVE for SGGNs, -0.13 (-0.56, 0.00). In the Bland-Altman test, only systems A and C passed the consistency test, P = 0.40. In terms of precision, the miss rate (MR) of system C was 0.00% for small solid nodules (SSNs), ground glass nodules (GGNs), and solid nodules (SNs) but 4.17% for SGGNs. The comparable system D MRs for SGGNs, SSNs, and GGNs were 71.30%, 25.93%, and 47.22%, respectively, the highest among all the systems. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis indicated that system A had the best performance in recognizing SSNs and GGNs, with areas under the curve of 0.91 and 0.68. System C had the best performance for SGGNs (AUC = 0.91).
conclusionAmong four types nodules, SGGNs are the most difficult to recognize, indicating the need to improve higher accuracy and precision of artificial systems. System A most accurately measured nodule volume. System C was most precise in recognizing all four types of nodules, especially SGGN.
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.