ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of CO-RADS Scores Based on Visual and Artificial Intelligence Assessments in a Non-Endemic Area.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we first developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithm for classifying chest computed tomography (CT) images using the coronavirus disease 2019 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS). Subsequently, we evaluated its accuracy by comparing the calculated scores with those assigned by radiologists with varying levels of experience. This study included patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent chest CT imaging between February and October 2020 in Japan, a non-endemic area. For each chest CT, the CO-RADS scores, determined by consensus among three experienced chest radiologists, were used as the gold standard. Images from 412 patients were used to train the model, whereas images from 83 patients were tested to obtain AI-based CO-RADS scores for each image. Six independent raters (one medical student, two residents, and three board-certified radiologists) evaluated the test images. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted kappa values were calculated to determine the inter-rater agreement with the gold standard. The mean ICC and weighted kappa were 0.754 and 0.752 for the medical student and residents (taken together), 0.851 and 0.850 for the diagnostic radiologists, and 0.913 and 0.912 for AI, respectively. The CO-RADS scores calculated using our AI-based algorithm were comparable to those assigned by radiologists, indicating the accuracy and high reproducibility of our model. Our study findings would enable accurate reading, particularly in areas where radiologists are unavailable, and contribute to improvements in patient management and workflow.
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.