ArticleScientific reports2024
Deep-learning model accurately classifies multi-label lung ultrasound findings, enhancing diagnostic accuracy and inter-reader agreement.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pneumothorax and Hemothorax: Practical Approaches for Radiologists.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2026Review
- Recent advances in artificial intelligence across interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for pleural effusion and pneumothorax detection on thoracic ultrasound: an educational viewpoint on the promise, pitfalls and path forward.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Analysis for Pleural Effusion Detection on Thoracic Ultrasound: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI Enhances Lung Ultrasound Interpretation Across Clinicians with Varying Expertise Levels.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical obstacles to machine-learning POCUS adoption and system-wide AI implementation (The COMPASS-AI survey).The ultrasound journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the increasing use of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the evaluation of respiratory disease, operators' competence constrains its effectiveness. We developed a deep-learning (DL) model for multi-label classification using LUS and validated its performance and efficacy on inter-reader variability. We retrospectively collected LUS and labeled as normal, B-line, consolidation, and effusion from patients undergoing thoracentesis at a tertiary institution between January 2018 and January 2022. The development and internal testing involved 7580 images from January 2018 and December 2020, and the model's performance was validated on a temporally separated test set (n = 985 images collected after January 2021) and two external test sets (n = 319 and 54 images). Two radiologists interpreted LUS with and without DL assistance and compared diagnostic performance and agreement. The model demonstrated robust performance with AUCs: 0.93 (95% CI 0.92-0.94) for normal, 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) for B-line, 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.86) for consolidation, and 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95) for effusion. The model improved reader accuracy for binary discrimination (normal vs. abnormal; reader 1: 87.5-95.6%, p = 0.004; reader 2: 95.0-97.5%, p = 0.19), and agreement (k = 0.73-0.83, p = 0.01). In conclusion, the DL-based model may assist interpretation, improving accuracy and overcoming operator competence limitations in LUS.
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.