Observational studyScientific reports2024
Real-world testing of an artificial intelligence algorithm for the analysis of chest X-rays in primary care settings.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shifting the paradigm in intracranial aneurysm detection with deep learning: A diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis and meta-regression.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Primary Care Doctors' Perspectives and Experiences With a Chest X-Ray AI Triage Program: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Prospective pilot evaluation of a deep learning model for kidney stone detection on CT using a web-based workflow platform.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Respiratory sound analysis for ICU clinical decision support: deep learning-based classification of normal and abnormal sounds using real ICU data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Aortic Arch Calcification on Chest Radiographs: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Swin-Qwen3: a three-stage vision-language framework for automated radiology report generation with multi-agent verification.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- External Validation of an Artificial Intelligence Triaging System for Chest X-Rays: A Retrospective Independent Clinical Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pediatric Orthopedics: A Comprehensive Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Autonomous chest x-ray image classification, capabilities and prospects: rapid evidence assessment.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interpreting chest X-rays is a complex task, and artificial intelligence algorithms for this purpose are currently being developed. It is important to perform external validations of these algorithms in order to implement them. This study therefore aims to externally validate an AI algorithm's diagnoses in real clinical practice, comparing them to a radiologist's diagnoses. The aim is also to identify diagnoses the algorithm may not have been trained for. A prospective observational study for the external validation of the AI algorithm in a region of Catalonia, comparing the AI algorithm's diagnosis with that of the reference radiologist, considered the gold standard. The external validation was performed with a sample of 278 images and reports, 51.8% of which showed no radiological abnormalities according to the radiologist's report. Analysing the validity of the AI algorithm, the average accuracy was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92; 0.98), the sensitivity was 0.48 (95% CI 0.30; 0.66) and the specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.97; 0.99). The conditions where the algorithm was most sensitive were external, upper abdominal and cardiac and/or valvular implants. On the other hand, the conditions where the algorithm was less sensitive were in the mediastinum, vessels and bone. The algorithm has been validated in the primary care setting and has proven to be useful when identifying images with or without conditions. However, in order to be a valuable tool to help and support experts, it requires additional real-world training to enhance its diagnostic capabilities for some of the conditions analysed. Our study emphasizes the need for continuous improvement to ensure the algorithm's effectiveness in primary care.
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.