ArticleEuropean radiology2023
Multicentre external validation of a commercial artificial intelligence software to analyse chest radiographs in health screening environments with low disease prevalence.
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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence and extracellular vesicles in oncology: towards tumor diagnosis, prediction, and therapy.Drug delivery · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Chest X-Ray Interpretation in Resource-Limited Settings: LuAna Stepped-Wedge Trial Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Recent advances in artificial intelligence across interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- AI-Driven Preoperative Chest Radiograph Analysis for Prognostic Stratification in Surgically Resected Pathological Stage 1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating Performance of a Deep Learning-based Artificial Intelligence Model for Ovarian Tumor Classification Using a Multicenter CT Dataset.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- An ensemble model approach for identifying pulmonary tuberculosis on chest X-ray.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Unveiling the paradox: a commentary on AI's unintended consequences in organ donation.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Radiologists' Reading Time in Bone Age Radiograph Assessment: A Preliminary Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Observational
- The evolution of cervical spine trauma classification: a paradigm shift from morphological description to clinical decision-making.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Deep learning improves physician accuracy in the comprehensive detection of abnormalities on chest X-rays.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted double reading of chest radiographs to detect clinically relevant missed findings: a two-centre evaluation.European radiology · 2024Article
- Evolving and Novel Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Thoracic Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Risks and rewards of AI democratization.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
- Real-world testing of an artificial intelligence algorithm for the analysis of chest X-rays in primary care settings.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- From Machine Learning to Patient Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review of AI in Pancreatic Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
36624227What 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.