ArticleJournal of the American College of Radiology : JACR2022
Comparison of Chest Radiograph Impressions for Diagnosing Pneumonia: Accounting for Categories of Language Certainty.
Article in Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond detection: can vision-language models redefine chest radiograph interpretation?European radiology · 2026Article
- Pediatric tracheostomy-associated respiratory infections: an evolving paradigm.Current opinion in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Uncertainty-Aware Convolutional Neural Network for Identifying Bilateral Opacities on Chest X-rays: A Tool to Aid Diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A radiographic, deep transfer learning framework, adapted to estimate lung opacities from chest x-rays.Bioelectronic medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesUncertain language in chest radiograph (CXR) reports for the diagnosis of pneumonia is prevalent. The purpose of this study is to validate an a priori stratification of CXR results for diagnosing pneumonia based on language of certainty.
designRetrospective chart review. SETTING AND
participantsCXR reports of 2,411 patient visits ≥ 18 years, admitted to medicine, who received a CXR and noncontrast chest CT within 48 hours of emergency department registration at two large academic hospitals (tertiary and quaternary care) were reviewed.
methodsThe CXR and CT report impressions were categorized as negative, uncertain, or positive. Uncertain CXRs were further stratified into four categories based on language modifiers for the degree of pneumonia certainty. Comparison of CXR and CT results were determined using χ
resultsCXR reports for the diagnosis of pneumonia revealed the following distribution: 61% negative, 32% uncertain, and 7% positive; CT reports were 55% negative, 22% uncertain, and 23% positive for the diagnosis of pneumonia. There were significant differences between CXR categories compared with CT categories for diagnosis of pneumonia (P < .001). Negative CXR results were not significantly different than the uncertain category with the most uncertain language (P = .030) but were significantly different from all other uncertain categories and positive CXR results (each P < .001). Positive CXR results were not significantly different than the least uncertain category (most certain language) (P = .130) but were significantly different from all other categories (each P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Language used in CXR reports to diagnose pneumonia exists in categories of varying certainty and should be considered when evaluating patients for pneumonia.
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.