Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36624227›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Multicentre external validation of a commercial artificial intelligence software to analyse chest radiographs in health screening environments with low disease prevalence.

Cherry Kim, Zepa Yang, Seong Ho Park, Sung Ho Hwang, Yu-Whan Oh, Eun-Young Kang, Hwan Seok Yong

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Risks and rewards of AI democratization.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024
    Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
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

7 authors.

Cherry KimDepartment of Radiology, Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 123, Jeokgeum-ro, Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi, 15355, South Korea.
Zepa YangBiomedical Research Center, Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, 08308, South Korea.
Seong Ho ParkDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, 05505, South Korea.
Sung Ho HwangDepartment of Radiology, Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, 02841, South Korea.
Yu-Whan OhDepartment of Radiology, Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, 02841, South Korea.
Eun-Young KangDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 33-41, Gurodong-ro 28-gil, Guro-gu, Seoul, 08308, South Korea.
Hwan Seok YongDepartment of Radiology, Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 33-41, Gurodong-ro 28-gil, Guro-gu, Seoul, 08308, South Korea. yhwanseok@naver.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0247-8932

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo externally validate the performance of a commercial AI software program for interpreting CXRs in a large, consecutive, real-world cohort from primary healthcare centres.

methodsA total of 3047 CXRs were collected from two primary healthcare centres, characterised by low disease prevalence, between January and December 2018. All CXRs were labelled as normal or abnormal according to CT findings. Four radiology residents read all CXRs twice with and without AI assistance. The performances of the AI and readers with and without AI assistance were measured in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity.

resultsThe prevalence of clinically significant lesions was 2.2% (68 of 3047). The AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity of the AI were 0.648 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.630-0.665), 35.3% (CI, 24.7-47.8), and 94.2% (CI, 93.3-95.0), respectively. AI detected 12 of 41 pneumonia, 3 of 5 tuberculosis, and 9 of 22 tumours. AI-undetected lesions tended to be smaller than true-positive lesions. The readers' AUROCs ranged from 0.534-0.676 without AI and 0.571-0.688 with AI (all p values < 0.05). For all readers, the mean reading time was 2.96-10.27 s longer with AI assistance (all p values < 0.05).

conclusionsThe performance of commercial AI in these high-volume, low-prevalence settings was poorer than expected, although it modestly boosted the performance of less-experienced readers. The technical prowess of AI demonstrated in experimental settings and approved by regulatory bodies may not directly translate to real-world practice, especially where the demand for AI assistance is highest. KEY POINTS: • This study shows the limited applicability of commercial AI software for detecting abnormalities in CXRs in a health screening population. • When using AI software in a specific clinical setting that differs from the training setting, it is necessary to adjust the threshold or perform additional training with such data that reflects this environment well. • Prospective test accuracy studies, randomised controlled trials, or cohort studies are needed to examine AI software to be implemented in real clinical practice.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLung DiseasesRadiography, ThoracicSoftwareAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLungMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceMulticentre studySoftwareThoracic radiographyValidation study

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.