ArticlePloS one2024
Development of automatic generation system for lung nodule finding descriptions.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Worldwide, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. To manage lung nodules, radiologists observe computed tomography images, review various imaging findings, and record these in radiology reports. The report contents should be of high quality and uniform regardless of the radiologist. Here, we propose an artificial intelligence system that automatically generates descriptions related to lung nodules in computed tomography images. Our system consists of an image recognition method for extracting contents-namely, bronchopulmonary segments and nodule characteristics from images-and a natural language processing method to generate fluent descriptions. To verify our system's clinical usefulness, we conducted an experiment in which two radiologists created nodule descriptions of findings using our system. Through our system, the similarity of the described contents between the two radiologists (p = 0.001) and the comprehensiveness of the contents (p = 0.025) improved, while the accuracy did not significantly deteriorate (p = 0.484).
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.