ArticleRadiology2023
Deep Learning Analysis of Chest Radiographs to Triage Patients with Acute Chest Pain Syndrome.
Article in Radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Deep learning in the early diagnosis of acute aortic dissection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Risk stratification of chest pain in the emergency department using artificial intelligence applied to electrocardiograms.Open heart · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven diagnosis of acute thoracic aortic dissection: integrating imaging, biomarkers, and clinical workflows-a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- The efficacy and safety of castor single-branch stent graft implantation in the treatment of type B acute aortic dissection: a retrospective analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in emergency and trauma radiology: ASER AI/ML expert panel Delphi consensus statement on research guidelines, practices, and priorities.Emergency radiology · 2025Article
- Deep learning to predict long-term mortality from plain chest X-ray in patients referred for suspected coronary artery disease.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Identifying patients with acute aortic dissection using an electrocardiogram with convolutional neural network.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
- Defining the cross-reactivity between peanut allergens Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 using monoclonal antibodies.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2024Article
- Patient Reidentification from Chest Radiographs: An Interpretable Deep Metric Learning Approach and Its Applications.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Shortcut Learning: Reduced But Not Resolved.Radiology · 2023Article
- The Feasibility and Performance of Total Hip Replacement Prediction Deep Learning Algorithm with Real World Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute chest pain (ACP) syndrome undergo additional testing to exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pulmonary embolism (PE), or aortic dissection (AD), often yielding negative results. Purpose To assess whether deep learning (DL) analysis of the initial chest radiograph may help triage patients with ACP syndrome more efficiently. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used electronic health records of patients with ACP syndrome at presentation who underwent a combination of chest radiography and additional cardiovascular or pulmonary imaging or stress tests at two hospitals (Massachusetts General Hospital [MGH], Brigham and Women's Hospital [BWH]) between January 2005 and December 2015. A DL model was trained on 23 005 patients from MGH to predict a 30-day composite end point of ACS, PE, AD, and all-cause mortality based on chest radiographs. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to compare performance between models (model 1: age + sex; model 2: model 1 + conventional troponin or d-dimer positivity; model 3: model 2 + DL predictions) in internal and external test sets from MGH and BWH, respectively. Results At MGH, 5750 patients (mean age, 59 years ± 17 [SD]; 3329 men, 2421 women) were evaluated. Model 3, which included DL predictions, significantly improved discrimination of those with the composite outcome compared with models 2 and 1 (AUC, 0.85 [95% CI: 0.84, 0.86] vs 0.76 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.77] vs 0.62 [95% CI: 0.60 0.64], respectively;
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.