ArticleJournal of X-ray science and technology2024
Can AI generate diagnostic reports for radiologist approval on CXR images? A multi-reader and multi-case observer performance study.
Article in Journal of X-ray science and technology, 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.
- LLaMA-XR: A Novel Framework for Radiology Report Generation Using LLaMA and QLoRA Fine Tuning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bridging semantics and clinical fidelity: a section-based assessment of a vision-language model (RadVLM) for chest x-ray report generation.Frontiers in digital health · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurately detecting a variety of lung abnormalities from heterogenous chest X-ray (CXR) images and writing radiology reports is often difficult and time-consuming.
objectiveTo access the utility of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system (MOM-ClaSeg) in enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of radiologists in detecting heterogenous lung abnormalities through a multi-reader and multi-case (MRMC) observer performance study.
methodsOver 36,000 CXR images were retrospectively collected from 12 hospitals over 4 months and used as the experiment group and the control group. In the control group, a double reading method is used in which two radiologists interpret CXR to generate a final report, while in the experiment group, one radiologist generates the final reports based on AI-generated reports.
resultsCompared with double reading, the diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity of single reading with AI increases significantly by 1.49% and 10.95%, respectively (P < 0.001), while the difference in specificity is small (0.22%) and without statistical significance (P = 0.255). Additionally, the average image reading and diagnostic time in the experimental group is reduced by 54.70% (P < 0.001).
conclusionThis MRMC study demonstrates that MOM-ClaSeg can potentially serve as the first reader to generate the initial diagnostic reports, with a radiologist only reviewing and making minor modifications (if needed) to arrive at the final decision. It also shows that single reading with AI can achieve a higher diagnostic accuracy and efficiency than double reading.
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.