Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34943442›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

The Added Effect of Artificial Intelligence on Physicians' Performance in Detecting Thoracic Pathologies on CT and Chest X-ray: A Systematic Review.

Dana Li, Lea Marie Pehrson, Carsten Ammitzbøl Lauridsen, Lea Tøttrup, Marco Fraccaro, Desmond Elliott, Hubert Dariusz Zając, Sune Darkner, Jonathan Frederik Carlsen, Michael Bachmann Nielsen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evolving role of point-of-care ultrasound in prehospital emergency care: a narrative review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dana LiDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lea Marie PehrsonDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carsten Ammitzbøl LauridsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lea TøttrupUnumed Aps, 1055 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Marco FraccaroUnumed Aps, 1055 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Desmond ElliottDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Hubert Dariusz ZającDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0689-6912
Sune DarknerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jonathan Frederik CarlsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6724-7281
Michael Bachmann NielsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9380-1688
University of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

Innovation Fund Denmark 0176-00013B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our systematic review investigated the additional effect of artificial intelligence-based devices on human observers when diagnosing and/or detecting thoracic pathologies using different diagnostic imaging modalities, such as chest X-ray and CT. Peer-reviewed, original research articles from EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane library, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were retrieved. Included articles were published within the last 20 years and used a device based on artificial intelligence (AI) technology to detect or diagnose pulmonary findings. The AI-based device had to be used in an observer test where the performance of human observers with and without addition of the device was measured as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, AUC, or time spent on image reading. A total of 38 studies were included for final assessment. The quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) was used for bias assessment. The average sensitivity increased from 67.8% to 74.6%; specificity from 82.2% to 85.4%; accuracy from 75.4% to 81.7%; and Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) from 0.75 to 0.80. Generally, a faster reading time was reported when radiologists were aided by AI-based devices. Our systematic review showed that performance generally improved for the physicians when assisted by AI-based devices compared to unaided interpretation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechest X-raycomputer-based devicesCTdeep learningobserver testsperformanceradiologythoracic diagnostic imaging

Identifiers

PMID34943442
PMCPMC8700414
OpenAlexW3215796869

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.