ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2024
Deep learning for tubes and lines detection in critical illness: Generalizability and comparison with residents.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Performance of Multimodal Large Language Models in Detection and Position Assessment of Thoracic Devices on Chest Radiographs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A multicenter study of automatic segmentation-based multimodal fusion integrating radiomics, deep learning, and clinical parameters for prostate cancer detection.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proven useful for the assessment of tubes and lines on chest radiographs of general patients. However, validation on intensive care unit (ICU) patients remains imperative. Methods: This retrospective case-control study evaluated the performance of deep learning (DL) models for tubes and lines classification on both an external public dataset and a local dataset comprising 303 films randomly sampled from the ICU database. The endotracheal tubes (ETTs), central venous catheters (CVCs), and nasogastric tubes (NGTs) were classified into "Normal," "Abnormal," or "Borderline" positions by DL models with and without rule-based modification. Their performance was evaluated using an experienced radiologist as the standard reference. Results: The algorithm showed decreased performance on the local ICU dataset, compared to that of the external dataset, decreasing from the Area Under the Curve of Receiver (AUC) of 0.967 (95 % CI 0.965-0.973) to the AUC of 0.70 (95 % CI 0.68-0.77). Significant improvement in the ETT classification task was observed after modifications were made to the model to allow the use of the spatial relationship between line tips and reference anatomy with the improvement of the AUC, increasing from 0.71 (95 % CI 0.70 - 0.75) to 0.86 (95 % CI 0.83 - 0.94). Conclusions: The externally trained model exhibited limited generalizability on the local ICU dataset. Therefore, evaluating the performance of externally trained AI before integrating it into critical care routine is crucial. Rule-based algorithm may be used in combination with DL to improve results.
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.