ArticleMedicina clinica (English ed.)2023
Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for detection of pulmonary involvement by COVID-19 based on portable radiography.
Article in Medicina clinica (English ed.), 2023. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of different artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for the identification of pulmonary involvement by SARS-CoV-2 based on portable chest radiography (RX). Material and methods: Prospective observational study that included patients admitted for suspected COVID-19 infection in a university hospital between July and November 2020. The reference standard of pulmonary involvement by SARS-CoV-2 comprised a positive PCR test and low-tract respiratory symptoms. Results: 493 patients were included, 140 (28%) with positive PCR and 32 (7%) with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The AI-B algorithm had the best diagnostic performance (areas under the ROC curve AI-B 0.73, vs. AI-A 0.51, vs. AI-C 0.57). Using a detection threshold greater than 55%, AI-B had greater diagnostic performance than the specialist [(area under the curve of 0.68 (95% CI 0.64-0.72), vs. 0.54 (95% CI 0.49-0.59)]. Conclusion: AI algorithms based on portable RX enabled a diagnostic performance comparable to human assessment for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 lung involvement.
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.