Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38466390›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2024

Artificial intelligence-assisted double reading of chest radiographs to detect clinically relevant missed findings: a two-centre evaluation.

Laurens Topff, Sanne Steltenpool, Erik R Ranschaert, Naglis Ramanauskas, Renee Menezes, Jacob J Visser, Regina G H Beets-Tan, Nolan S Hartkamp

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

8 authors.

Laurens TopffDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. l.topff@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1186-3007
Sanne SteltenpoolDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik R RanschaertDepartment of Radiology, St. Nikolaus Hospital, Eupen, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9375-9750
Naglis RamanauskasOxipit UAB, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Renee MenezesBiostatistics Centre, Department of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacob J VisserDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Regina G H Beets-Tan *Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nolan S Hartkamp *Department of Radiology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted double reading system for detecting clinically relevant missed findings on routinely reported chest radiographs.

methodsA retrospective study was performed in two institutions, a secondary care hospital and tertiary referral oncology centre. Commercially available AI software performed a comparative analysis of chest radiographs and radiologists' authorised reports using a deep learning and natural language processing algorithm, respectively. The AI-detected discrepant findings between images and reports were assessed for clinical relevance by an external radiologist, as part of the commercial service provided by the AI vendor. The selected missed findings were subsequently returned to the institution's radiologist for final review.

resultsIn total, 25,104 chest radiographs of 21,039 patients (mean age 61.1 years ± 16.2 [SD]; 10,436 men) were included. The AI software detected discrepancies between imaging and reports in 21.1% (5289 of 25,104). After review by the external radiologist, 0.9% (47 of 5289) of cases were deemed to contain clinically relevant missed findings. The institution's radiologists confirmed 35 of 47 missed findings (74.5%) as clinically relevant (0.1% of all cases). Missed findings consisted of lung nodules (71.4%, 25 of 35), pneumothoraces (17.1%, 6 of 35) and consolidations (11.4%, 4 of 35).

conclusionThe AI-assisted double reading system was able to identify missed findings on chest radiographs after report authorisation. The approach required an external radiologist to review the AI-detected discrepancies. The number of clinically relevant missed findings by radiologists was very low. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The AI-assisted double reader workflow was shown to detect diagnostic errors and could be applied as a quality assurance tool. Although clinically relevant missed findings were rare, there is potential impact given the common use of chest radiography. KEY POINTS: • A commercially available double reading system supported by artificial intelligence was evaluated to detect reporting errors in chest radiographs (n=25,104) from two institutions. • Clinically relevant missed findings were found in 0.1% of chest radiographs and consisted of unreported lung nodules, pneumothoraces and consolidations. • Applying AI software as a secondary reader after report authorisation can assist in reducing diagnostic errors without interrupting the radiologist's reading workflow. However, the number of AI-detected discrepancies was considerable and required review by a radiologist to assess their relevance.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRadiography, ThoracicAgedAlgorithmsDeep LearningDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNatural Language ProcessingRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceDiagnostic errorsHealthcare quality assuranceNatural language processingThoracic radiography

Identifiers

PMID38466390
PMCPMC11364654

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.