Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39322406›Full record

SynthesisThorax2024

Software using artificial intelligence for nodule and cancer detection in CT lung cancer screening: systematic review of test accuracy studies.

Julia Geppert, Asra Asgharzadeh, Anna Brown, Chris Stinton, Emma J Helm, Surangi Jayakody, Daniel Todkill, Daniel Gallacher, Hesam Ghiasvand, Mubarak Patel and 7 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Thorax, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  15. AI for breast cancer screening.Nature cancer · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Julia GeppertWarwick Screening & Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Asra AsgharzadehPopulation Health Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Anna BrownWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Chris StintonWarwick Screening & Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Emma J HelmDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.
Surangi JayakodyWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Daniel TodkillWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Daniel GallacherWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Hesam GhiasvandWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Mubarak PatelWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Peter AugusteWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Alexander TsertsvadzeWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Yen-Fu ChenWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Y-F.Chen@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9446-2761
Amy GroveWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bethany ShinkinsWarwick Screening & Warwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Aileen ClarkeWarwick Evidence, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sian Taylor-PhillipsWarwick Screening, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the accuracy and impact of artificial intelligence (AI) software assistance in lung cancer screening using CT.

methodsA systematic review of CE-marked, AI-based software for automated detection and analysis of nodules in CT lung cancer screening was conducted. Multiple databases including Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 2012 to March 2023. Primary research reporting test accuracy or impact on reading time or clinical management was included. QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C were used to assess risk of bias. We undertook narrative synthesis.

resultsEleven studies evaluating six different AI-based software and reporting on 19 770 patients were eligible. All were at high risk of bias with multiple applicability concerns. Compared with unaided reading, AI-assisted reading was faster and generally improved sensitivity (+5% to +20% for detecting/categorising actionable nodules; +3% to +15% for detecting/categorising malignant nodules), with lower specificity (-7% to -3% for correctly detecting/categorising people without actionable nodules; -8% to -6% for correctly detecting/categorising people without malignant nodules). AI assistance tended to increase the proportion of nodules allocated to higher risk categories. Assuming 0.5% cancer prevalence, these results would translate into additional 150-750 cancers detected per million people attending screening but lead to an additional 59 700 to 79 600 people attending screening without cancer receiving unnecessary CT surveillance.

conclusionsAI assistance in lung cancer screening may improve sensitivity but increases the number of false-positive results and unnecessary surveillance. Future research needs to increase the specificity of AI-assisted reading and minimise risk of bias and applicability concerns through improved study design. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021298449.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerLung NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansSensitivity and SpecificitySoftwareClinical EpidemiologyImaging/CT MRI etcLung CancerNon-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Identifiers

PMID39322406
PMCPMC11503082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.