Trial reportEuropean radiology2022
Value of a deep learning-based algorithm for detecting Lung-RADS category 4 nodules on chest radiographs in a health checkup population: estimation of the sample size for a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revolutionizing lung cancer screening: the rise of artificial intelligence integrating circulating tumor markers.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of chest radiography using artificial intelligence for lung cancer screening in South Korea.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Bridging surgical oncology and personalized medicine: the role of artificial intelligence and machine learning in thoracic surgery.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- New Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening and Artificial Intelligence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Systematic Review: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer Screening in Detecting Lung Nodules on Chest X-Rays.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted radiology assessment of cancer: a systematic review.BJR artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Advances in early detection of non-small cell lung cancer: A comprehensive review.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- Future implications of artificial intelligence in lung cancer screening: a systematic review.BJR open · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the value of a deep learning-based algorithm in detecting Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System category 4 nodules on chest radiographs from an asymptomatic health checkup population.
methodsData from an annual retrospective cohort of individuals who underwent chest radiographs for health checkup purposes and chest CT scanning within 3 months were collected. Among 3073 individuals, 118 with category 4 nodules on CT were selected. A reader performance test was performed using those 118 radiographs and randomly selected 51 individuals without any nodules. Four radiologists independently evaluated the radiographs without and with the results of the algorithm; and sensitivities/specificities were compared. The sample size needed to confirm the difference in detection rates was calculated, i.e., the number of true-positive radiographs divided by the total number of radiographs.
resultsThe sensitivity of the radiologists substantially increased aided by the algorithm (38.8% [183/472] to 45.1% [213/472]; p < .001) without significant change in specificity (94.1% [192/204] vs. 92.2% [188/204]; p = .22). Pooled radiologists detected more nodules with the algorithm (32.0% [156/488] vs. 38.9% [190/488]; p < .001), without alteration of false-positive rates (0.09 [62/676], both). Pooled detection rates for the annual cohort were 1.49% (183/12,292) and 1.73% (213/12,292) without and with the algorithm, respectively. A sample size of 41,776 in each arm would be required to demonstrate significant detection rate difference with < 5% type I error and > 80% power.
conclusionAlthough readers substantially increased sensitivity in detecting nodules on chest radiographs from a health checkup population aided by the algorithm, detection rate difference was only 0.24%, requiring a sample size >80,000 for a randomized controlled trial. KEY POINTS: • Aided by a deep learning algorithm, pooled radiologists improved their sensitivity in detecting Lung-RADS category 4 nodules on chest radiographs from a health checkup population (38.8% [183/472] to 45.1% [213/472]; p < .001), without increasing false-positive rate. • The prevalence of the Lung-RADS category 4 nodules was 3.8% (118/3073) on the population, resulting in only 0.24% increase of the detection rate for the radiologists with assistance of the algorithm. • To confirm the significant detection rate increase by a randomized controlled trial, a sample size of 84,000 would be required.
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.