ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Feasibility of an artificial intelligence system for tumor response evaluation.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to measure the long-diameter of tumors for evaluating treatment response.
methodsOur study included 48 patients with lung-specific target lesions and conducted 277 measurements. The radiologists recorded the long-diameter in axial imaging plane of the target lesions for each measurement. Meanwhile, AI software was utilized to measure the long-diameter in both the axial imaging plane and in three dimensions (3D). Statistical analyses including the Bland-Altman plot, Spearman correlation analysis, and paired t-test to ascertain the accuracy and reliability of our findings.
resultsThe Bland-Altman plot showed that the AI measurements had a bias of -0.28 mm and had limits of agreement ranging from - 13.78 to 13.22 mm (P = 0.497), indicating agreement with the manual measurements. However, there was no agreement between the 3D measurements and the manual measurements, with P < 0.001. The paired t-test revealed no statistically significant difference between the manual measurements and AI measurements (P = 0.497), whereas a statistically significant difference was observed between the manual measurements and 3D measurements (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe application of AI in measuring the long-diameter of tumors had significantly improved efficiency and reduced the incidence of subjective measurement errors. This advancement facilitated more convenient and accurate tumor response evaluation.
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.