ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2023
An Artificial Neural Network for Nasogastric Tube Position Decision Support.
Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review of Artificial Intelligence for Automated Assessment of Lines, Drains, and Airways on Pediatric and Adult Chest Radiographs.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
- Radiological Confirmation of Enteral Feeding Tube Placement Before Initiating Enteral Nutrition: A Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Are radiology residents safe to report feeding nasogastric (NG) tubes on chest X-rays?BJR open · 2026Article
- Pilot Evaluation of a Deep Learning Model for Nasogastric Tube Verification on Chest Radiographs: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- Optimizing breast lesions diagnosis and decision-making with a deep learning fusion model integrating ultrasound and mammography: a dual-center retrospective study.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Deep learning based dual stage model for accurate nasogastric tube positioning in chest radiographs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in the detection of non-biological materials.Emergency radiology · 2024Review
- Mal-positioned nasogastric feeding tubes: are medical students safe to identify them?The British journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Risk Management and Patient Safety in the Artificial Intelligence Era: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Early detection of heart failure using in-patient longitudinal electronic health records.PloS one · 2024Article
- Analysis of Line and Tube Detection Performance of a Chest X-ray Deep Learning Model to Evaluate Hidden Stratification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and validate a deep learning model for detection of nasogastric tube (NGT) malposition on chest radiographs and assess model impact as a clinical decision support tool for junior physicians to help determine whether feeding can be safely performed in patients (feed/do not feed). Materials and Methods: A neural network ensemble was pretrained on 1 132 142 retrospectively collected (June 2007-August 2019) frontal chest radiographs and further fine-tuned on 7081 chest radiographs labeled by three radiologists. Clinical relevance was assessed on an independent set of 335 images. Five junior emergency medicine physicians assessed chest radiographs and made feed/do not feed decisions without and with artificial intelligence (AI)-generated NGT malposition probabilities placed above chest radiographs. Decisions from the radiologists served as ground truths. Model performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Agreement between junior physician and radiologist decision was determined using the Cohen κ coefficient. Results: In the testing set, the ensemble achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.86), 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.83), and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.00) for satisfactory, malpositioned, and bronchial positions, respectively. In the clinical evaluation set, mean interreader agreement for feed/do not feed decisions among junior physicians was 0.65 ± 0.03 (SD) and 0.77 ± 0.13 without and with AI support, respectively. Mean agreement between junior physicians and radiologists was 0.53 ± 0.05 (unaided) and 0.65 ± 0.09 (AI-aided). Conclusion: A simple classifier for NGT malposition may help junior physicians determine the safety of feeding in patients with NGTs.
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.