ArticlePloS one2024
Detection and position evaluation of chest percutaneous drainage catheter on chest radiographs using deep learning.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of Artificial Intelligence for Automated Assessment of Lines, Drains, and Airways on Pediatric and Adult Chest Radiographs.Pediatric reports · 2026Review
- Correction: Detection and position evaluation of chest percutaneous drainage catheter on chest radiographs using deep learning.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop an algorithm for the automatic detecting chest percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) and evaluating catheter positions on chest radiographs using deep learning.
methodsThis retrospective study included 1,217 chest radiographs (proper positioned: 937; malpositioned: 280) from a total of 960 patients underwent chest PCD from October 2017 to February 2023. The tip location of the chest PCD was annotated using bounding boxes and classified as proper positioned and malpositioned. The radiographs were randomly allocated into the training, validation sets (total: 1,094 radiographs; proper positioned: 853 radiographs; malpositioned: 241 radiographs), and test datasets (total: 123 radiographs; proper positioned: 84 radiographs; malpositioned: 39 radiographs). The selected AI model was used to detect the catheter tip of chest PCD and evaluate the catheter's position using the test dataset to distinguish between properly positioned and malpositioned cases. Its performance in detecting the catheter and assessing its position on chest radiographs was evaluated by per radiographs and per instances. The association between the position and function of the catheter during chest PCD was evaluated.
resultsIn per chest radiographs, the selected model's accuracy was 0.88. The sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 and 0.92, respectively. In per instance, the selected model's the mean Average Precision 50 (mAP50) was 0.86. The precision and recall were 0.90 and 0.79 respectively. Regarding the association between the position and function of the catheter during chest PCD, its sensitivity and specificity were 0.93 and 0.95, respectively.
conclusionThe artificial intelligence model for the automatic detection and evaluation of catheter position during chest PCD on chest radiographs demonstrated acceptable diagnostic performance and could assist radiologists and clinicians in the early detection of catheter malposition and malfunction during chest percutaneous catheter drainage.
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.