Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34164285›Full record

ReviewTranslational lung cancer research2021

Artificial intelligence for detection and characterization of pulmonary nodules in lung cancer CT screening: ready for practice?

Anton Schreuder, Ernst T Scholten, Bram van Ginneken, Colin Jacobs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational lung cancer research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Artificial intelligence for cancer screening and surveillance.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2024
    Review
  18. Artificial intelligence in lung cancer.Annals of translational medicine · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anton SchreuderDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Anatomy, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ernst T ScholtenDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Anatomy, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bram van GinnekenDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Anatomy, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Colin JacobsDepartment of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Anatomy, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer computed tomography (CT) screening trials using low-dose CT have repeatedly demonstrated a reduction in the number of lung cancer deaths in the screening group compared to a control group. With various countries currently considering the implementation of lung cancer screening, recurring discussion points are, among others, the potentially high false positive rates, cost-effectiveness, and the availability of radiologists for scan interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to increase the efficiency of lung cancer screening. We discuss the performance levels of AI algorithms for various tasks related to the interpretation of lung screening CT scans, how they compare to human experts, and how AI and humans may complement each other. We discuss how AI may be used in the lung cancer CT screening workflow according to the current evidence and describe the additional research that will be required before AI can take a more prominent role in the analysis of lung screening CT scans.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)computed tomography (CT)Lung cancerpulmonary nodule

Identifiers

PMID34164285
PMCPMC8182724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.