Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39009424›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2024

Evaluation of the impact of artificial intelligence-assisted image interpretation on the diagnostic performance of clinicians in identifying pneumothoraces on plain chest X-ray: a multi-case multi-reader study.

Alex Novak, Sarim Ather, Avneet Gill, Peter Aylward, Giles Maskell, Gordon W Cowell, Abdala Trinidad Espinosa Morgado, Tom Duggan, Melissa Keevill, Olivia Gamble and 23 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

33 authors.

Alex NovakEmergency Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK alex.novak@ouh.nhs.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5880-8235
Sarim AtherRadiology Department, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.
Avneet GillOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Peter AylwardReport and Image Quality Control (RAIQC), London, UK, UK.
Giles MaskellRoyal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, Cornwall, UK.
Gordon W CowellQueen Elizabeth University Hospital Campus, Glasgow, UK.
Abdala Trinidad Espinosa MorgadoEmergency Department, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0967-3554
Tom DugganBuckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Amersham, UK.
Melissa KeevillOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Olivia GambleOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Osama AkramaEmergency Department, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, UK.
Elizabeth BelcherOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Rhona TaberhamOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Rob HallifaxOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Jasdeep BahraOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9503-5510
Abhishek BanerjiBuckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Amersham, UK.
Jon BaileyOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9752-0712
Antonia JamesOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Ali AnsaripourOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Nathan SpenceOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
John WrightsonOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Waqas JarralFrimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley, UK.
Steven BarryOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Saher BhattiFrimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley, UK.
Kerry AstleyOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Amied ShadmaanGE Healthcare Diagnostic Imaging, Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, UK.
Sharon GhelmanGE Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Alec BaenenGE Healthcare Ltd, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Jason OkeUniversity of Oxford Greyfriars, Oxford, UK.
Claire BloomfieldUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Hilal JohnsonUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Mark BeggsUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Fergus GleesonRadiology Department, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-assisted image interpretation is a fast-developing area of clinical innovation. Most research to date has focused on the performance of AI-assisted algorithms in comparison with that of radiologists rather than evaluating the algorithms' impact on the clinicians who often undertake initial image interpretation in routine clinical practice. This study assessed the impact of AI-assisted image interpretation on the diagnostic performance of frontline acute care clinicians for the detection of pneumothoraces (PTX).

methodsA multicentre blinded multi-case multi-reader study was conducted between October 2021 and January 2022. The online study recruited 18 clinician readers from six different clinical specialties, with differing levels of seniority, across four English hospitals. The study included 395 plain CXR images, 189 positive for PTX and 206 negative. The reference standard was the consensus opinion of two thoracic radiologists with a third acting as arbitrator. General Electric Healthcare Critical Care Suite (GEHC CCS) PTX algorithm was applied to the final dataset. Readers individually interpreted the dataset without AI assistance, recording the presence or absence of a PTX and a confidence rating. Following a 'washout' period, this process was repeated including the AI output.

resultsAnalysis of the performance of the algorithm for detecting or ruling out a PTX revealed an overall AUROC of 0.939. Overall reader sensitivity increased by 11.4% (95% CI 4.8, 18.0, p=0.002) from 66.8% (95% CI 57.3, 76.2) unaided to 78.1% aided (95% CI 72.2, 84.0, p=0.002), specificity 93.9% (95% CI 90.9, 97.0) without AI to 95.8% (95% CI 93.7, 97.9, p=0.247). The junior reader subgroup showed the largest improvement at 21.7% (95% CI 10.9, 32.6), increasing from 56.0% (95% CI 37.7, 74.3) to 77.7% (95% CI 65.8, 89.7, p<0.01).

conclusionThe study indicates that AI-assisted image interpretation significantly enhances the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in detecting PTX, particularly benefiting less experienced practitioners. While overall interpretation time remained unchanged, the use of AI improved diagnostic confidence and sensitivity, especially among junior clinicians. These findings underscore the potential of AI to support less skilled clinicians in acute care settings.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePneumothoraxRadiography, ThoracicAlgorithmsClinical CompetenceFemaleHumansMaleSensitivity and Specificitychestemergency departmentpneumothorax

Identifiers

PMID39009424
PMCPMC11503157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.