ArticlePolish journal of radiology2024
Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence in post-endovascular aneurysm repair endoleak detection using dual-energy computed tomography angiography.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool in detecting endoleaks in patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using dual-energy computed tomography angiography (CTA). Material and methods: The study involved 95 patients who underwent EVAR and subsequent CTA follow-up. Dualenergy scans were performed, and images were reconstructed as linearly blended (LB) and 40 keV virtual monoenergetic (VMI) images. The AI tool PRAEVAorta Results: The final analysis included 94 patients. The AI tool demonstrated an accuracy of 78.7%, precision of 67.6%, recall of 10 71.9%, F1 score of 69.7%, and an AUC of 0.77 using LB images. However, the tool failed to process 40 keV VMI images correctly, limiting further analysis of these datasets. Conclusions: The AI tool showed moderate diagnostic accuracy in detecting endoleaks using LB images but failed to achieve the reliability needed for clinical use due to the significant number of misdiagnoses.
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.