ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
A decision tree for predicting the causative pathogens of community-acquired pneumonia from thin-section computed tomography.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether decision trees are useful for predicting organisms that cause community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed a decision tree for predicting the organisms that cause CAP based on previously reported characteristic computed tomography findings. Sixteen readers (two student doctors, six residents, and eight radiologists) separately diagnosed 68 randomly selected cases of CAP using chest computed tomography. The first, second, and third most likely causative organisms were estimated for each case, and the percentages of correct answers were evaluated for consistency with the isolated organisms. The same 68 cases were then read again using the decision tree, with the first three most likely organisms again being estimated, and the percentage of agreement was evaluated as the percentage of correct responses after using the decision tree.
resultsFor student doctors, residents, and radiologists, the percentage of correct responses increased significantly (p < 0.0001) when the decision tree was used to predict the first, second, and third most probable causative organism. The radiologists all obtained an accuracy rate of 80% or higher when estimating up to three candidate organisms using the decision tree. The organism for which the decision tree was most useful was Mycoplasma pneumoniae, followed by Haemophilus influenzae and Chlamydophila pneumoniae (p < 0.001).
conclusionUse of the decision tree made it possible to estimate the organisms responsible for CAP with a high correct response rate.
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.