ArticleEmergency radiology2021
Pseudo-pneumatosis of the gastrointestinal tract: its incidence and the accuracy of a checklist supported by artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to reduce the misinterpretation of pneumatosis.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acute abdomen with intraperitoneal free gas: a diagnostic pitfall of pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis-a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence in the Early Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the incidence of erroneous diagnosis of pneumatosis (pseudo-pneumatosis) in patients who underwent an emergency abdominal CT and to verify the performance of imaging features, supported by artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, to reduce this misinterpretation.
methodsWe selected 71 radiological reports where the presence of pneumatosis was considered definitive or suspected. Surgical findings, clinical outcomes, and reevaluation of the CT scans were used to assess the correct diagnosis of pneumatosis. We identified four imaging signs from literature, to differentiate pneumatosis from pseudo-pneumatosis: gas location, dissecting gas in the bowel wall, a circumferential gas pattern, and intramural gas beyond a gas-fluid/faecal level. Two radiologists reevaluated in consensus all the CT scans, assessing the four above-mentioned variables. Variable discriminative importance was assessed using the Fisher exact test. Accurate and statistically significant variables (p-value < 0.05, accuracy > 75%) were pooled using boosted Random Forests (RFs) executed using a Leave-One-Out cross-validation (LOO cv) strategy to obtain unbiased estimates of individual variable importance by permutation analysis. After the LOO cv, the comparison of the variable importance distribution was validated by one-sided Wilcoxon test.
resultsTwenty-seven patients proved to have pseudo-pneumatosis (error: 38%). The most significant features to diagnose pneumatosis were presence of dissecting gas in the bowel wall (accuracy: 94%), presence of intramural gas beyond a gas-fluid/faecal level (accuracy: 86%), and a circumferential gas pattern (accuracy: 78%).
conclusionThe incidence of pseudo-pneumatosis can be high. The use of a checklist which includes three imaging signs can be useful to reduce this overestimation.
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.