Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37191957›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Integration of Artificial Intelligence Decision Aids to Reduce Workload and Enhance Efficiency in Thyroid Nodule Management.

Wen-Juan Tong, Shao-Hong Wu, Mei-Qing Cheng, Hui Huang, Jin-Yu Liang, Chao-Qun Li, Huan-Ling Guo, Dan-Ni He, Yi-Hao Liu, Han Xiao and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Research progress on deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis of thyroid nodules using ultrasound imaging].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wen-Juan TongDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Shao-Hong WuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Mei-Qing ChengDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Hui HuangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Jin-Yu LiangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Chao-Qun LiDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Huan-Ling GuoDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Dan-Ni HeDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Yi-Hao LiuClinical Trials Unit, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Han XiaoDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Hang-Tong HuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Si-Min RuanDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ming-De LiDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Ming-De LuDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Wei WangDepartment of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: To optimize the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) decision aids and reduce workload in thyroid nodule management, it is critical to incorporate personalized AI into the decision-making processes of radiologists with varying levels of expertise. Objective: To develop an optimized integration of AI decision aids for reducing radiologists' workload while maintaining diagnostic performance compared with traditional AI-assisted strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study, a retrospective set of 1754 ultrasonographic images of 1048 patients with 1754 thyroid nodules from July 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019, was used to build an optimized strategy based on how 16 junior and senior radiologists incorporated AI-assisted diagnosis results with different image features. In the prospective set of this diagnostic study, 300 ultrasonographic images of 268 patients with 300 thyroid nodules from May 1 to December 31, 2021, were used to compare the optimized strategy with the traditional all-AI strategy in terms of diagnostic performance and workload reduction. Data analyses were completed in September 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The retrospective set of images was used to develop an optimized integration of AI decision aids for junior and senior radiologists based on the selection of AI-assisted significant or nonsignificant features. In the prospective set of images, the diagnostic performance, time-based cost, and assisted diagnosis were compared between the optimized strategy and the traditional all-AI strategy. Results: The retrospective set included 1754 ultrasonographic images from 1048 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.1 [13.2] years; 749 women [71.5%]) with 1754 thyroid nodules (mean [SD] size, 16.4 [10.6] mm); 748 nodules (42.6%) were benign, and 1006 (57.4%) were malignant. The prospective set included 300 ultrasonographic images from 268 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.7 [14.1] years; 194 women [72.4%]) with 300 thyroid nodules (mean [SD] size, 17.2 [6.8] mm); 125 nodules (41.7%) were benign, and 175 (58.3%) were malignant. For junior radiologists, the ultrasonographic features that were not improved by AI assistance included cystic or almost completely cystic nodules, anechoic nodules, spongiform nodules, and nodules smaller than 5 mm, whereas for senior radiologists the features that were not improved by AI assistance were cystic or almost completely cystic nodules, anechoic nodules, spongiform nodules, very hypoechoic nodules, nodules taller than wide, lobulated or irregular nodules, and extrathyroidal extension. Compared with the traditional all-AI strategy, the optimized strategy was associated with increased mean task completion times for junior radiologists (reader 11, from 15.2 seconds [95% CI, 13.2-17.2 seconds] to 19.4 seconds [95% CI, 15.6-23.3 seconds]; reader 12, from 12.7 seconds [95% CI, 11.4-13.9 seconds] to 15.6 seconds [95% CI, 13.6-17.7 seconds]), but shorter times for senior radiologists (reader 14, from 19.4 seconds [95% CI, 18.1-20.7 seconds] to 16.8 seconds [95% CI, 15.3-18.3 seconds]; reader 16, from 12.5 seconds [95% CI, 12.1-12.9 seconds] to 10.0 seconds [95% CI, 9.5-10.5 seconds]). There was no significant difference in sensitivity (range, 91%-100%) or specificity (range, 94%-98%) between the 2 strategies for readers 11 to 16. Conclusions and Relevance: This diagnostic study suggests that an optimized AI strategy in thyroid nodule management may reduce diagnostic time-based costs without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy for senior radiologists, while the traditional all-AI strategy may still be more beneficial for junior radiologists.

Indexed as

Thyroid NoduleAdultArtificial IntelligenceDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityWorkload

Identifiers

PMID37191957
PMCPMC10189570
OpenAlexW4376641653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.