ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparing Visual and Software-Based Quantitative Assessment Scores of Lungs' Parenchymal Involvement Quantification in COVID-19 Patients.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Based Quantitative HRCT for In-Hospital Adverse Outcomes and Exploratory Assessment of Reinfection in COVID-19.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- AI-derived CT biomarker score for robust COVID-19 mortality prediction across multiple waves and regions using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Medical Image Quality Assessment.Journal of imaging · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Computed tomography (CT) plays a paramount role in the characterization and follow-up of COVID-19. Several score systems have been implemented to properly assess the lung parenchyma involved in patients suffering from SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as the visual quantitative assessment score (VQAS) and software-based quantitative assessment score (SBQAS) to help in managing patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This study aims to investigate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the VQAS and SBQAS with two different types of software based on artificial intelligence (AI) in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2. (2) Methods: This is a retrospective study; a total of 90 patients were enrolled with the following criteria: patients' age more than 18 years old, positive test for COVID-19 and unenhanced chest CT scan obtained between March and June 2021. The VQAS was independently assessed, and the SBQAS was performed with two different artificial intelligence-driven software programs (Icolung and CT-COPD). The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) statistical index and Bland-Altman Plot were employed. (3) Results: The agreement scores between radiologists (R1 and R2) for the VQAS of the lung parenchyma involved in the CT images were good (ICC = 0.871). The agreement score between the two software types for the SBQAS was moderate (ICC = 0.584). The accordance between Icolung and the median of the visual evaluations (Median R1-R2) was good (ICC = 0.885). The correspondence between CT-COPD and the median of the VQAS (Median R1-R2) was moderate (ICC = 0.622). (4) Conclusions: This study showed moderate and good agreement upon the VQAS and the SBQAS; enhancing this approach as a valuable tool to manage COVID-19 patients and the combination of AI tools with physician expertise can lead to the most accurate diagnosis and treatment plans for patients.
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.