ArticleiScience2023
A deep learning-based semiautomated workflow for triaging follow-up MR scans in treated nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
Article in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Application of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: A Systematic and Narrative Review of Pedagogical Potential and Ethical Implications.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is imperative to optimally utilize virtues and obviate defects of fully automated analysis and expert knowledge in new paradigms of healthcare. We present a deep learning-based semiautomated workflow (RAINMAN) with 12,809 follow-up scans among 2,172 patients with treated nasopharyngeal carcinoma from three centers (ChiCTR.org.cn, Chi-CTR2200056595). A boost of diagnostic performance and reduced workload was observed in RAINMAN compared with the original manual interpretations (internal vs. external: sensitivity, 2.5% [p = 0.500] vs. 3.2% [p = 0.031]; specificity, 2.9% [p < 0.001] vs. 0.3% [p = 0.302]; workload reduction, 79.3% vs. 76.2%). The workflow also yielded a triaging performance of 83.6%, with increases of 1.5% in sensitivity (p = 1.000) and 0.6%-1.3% (all p < 0.05) in specificity compared to three radiologists in the reader study. The semiautomated workflow shows its unique superiority in reducing radiologist's workload by eliminating negative scans while retaining the diagnostic performance of radiologists.
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.