Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36832231›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Machine Learning Augmented Interpretation of Chest X-rays: A Systematic Review.

Hassan K Ahmad, Michael R Milne, Quinlan D Buchlak, Nalan Ektas, Georgina Sanderson, Hadi Chamtie, Sajith Karunasena, Jason Chiang, Xavier Holt, Cyril H M Tang and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06075836 (Utility of an AI-based CXR Interpretation Tool in Assisting Diagnostic Accuracy, Speed, and Confidence of Healthcare Professionals), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

NCT06075836 completednot on this map

Utility of an AI-based CXR Interpretation Tool in Assisting Diagnostic Accuracy, Speed, and Confidence of Healthcare Professionals: a Study Using 500 Retrospectively Collected Inpatient and Emergency Department CXRs From Two UK Hospital Trusts

TypeobservationalSponsorOxford University Hospitals NHS TrustRan2023 to 2025Enrolled33ConditionsPulmonary Nodules, Solitary, Pulmonary Nodules, Multiple, Pulmonary Consolidation, PneumothoraxArmsCases reading, Ground truthing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

15 authors.

Hassan K AhmadAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Michael R MilneAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Quinlan D BuchlakAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Nalan EktasAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Georgina SandersonAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Hadi ChamtieAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Sajith KarunasenaAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Jason ChiangAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Xavier HoltAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Cyril H M TangAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Jarrel C Y SeahAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Georgina BottrellAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Nazanin EsmailiSchool of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia.
Peter BrotchieAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
Catherine JonesAnnalise.ai, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limitations of the chest X-ray (CXR) have resulted in attempts to create machine learning systems to assist clinicians and improve interpretation accuracy. An understanding of the capabilities and limitations of modern machine learning systems is necessary for clinicians as these tools begin to permeate practice. This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of machine learning applications designed to facilitate CXR interpretation. A systematic search strategy was executed to identify research into machine learning algorithms capable of detecting >2 radiographic findings on CXRs published between January 2020 and September 2022. Model details and study characteristics, including risk of bias and quality, were summarized. Initially, 2248 articles were retrieved, with 46 included in the final review. Published models demonstrated strong standalone performance and were typically as accurate, or more accurate, than radiologists or non-radiologist clinicians. Multiple studies demonstrated an improvement in the clinical finding classification performance of clinicians when models acted as a diagnostic assistance device. Device performance was compared with that of clinicians in 30% of studies, while effects on clinical perception and diagnosis were evaluated in 19%. Only one study was prospectively run. On average, 128,662 images were used to train and validate models. Most classified less than eight clinical findings, while the three most comprehensive models classified 54, 72, and 124 findings. This review suggests that machine learning devices designed to facilitate CXR interpretation perform strongly, improve the detection performance of clinicians, and improve the efficiency of radiology workflow. Several limitations were identified, and clinician involvement and expertise will be key to driving the safe implementation of quality CXR machine learning systems.

Indexed as

chest X-raydeep learningmachine learningradiology

Identifiers

PMID36832231
PMCPMC9955112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.