ArticlePloS one2025
AI-assisted radiologists vs. standard double reading for rib fracture detection on CT images: A real-world clinical study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of AI-assisted versus independent physician interpretation for bone fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology experimental · 2026Pooled it
- AI-Assisted Fracture Detection in Orthopedic and Trauma Imaging: Where It Works, Where It Fails, and Principles for Safe Clinical Deployment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Contemporary and Future Perspectives on Thoracic Trauma Care: Surgical Stabilization, Multidisciplinary Approaches, and the Role of Artificial Intelligence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Optimizing the power of AI for fracture detection: from blind spots to breakthroughs.Skeletal radiology · 2025Review
- Assessing the performance of an artificial intelligence based chatbot in the differential diagnosis of oral mucosal lesions: clinical validation study.Clinical oral investigations · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) assisted radiologists and standard double-reading in real-world clinical settings for rib fractures (RFs) detection on CT images. This study included 243 consecutive chest trauma patients (mean age, 58.1 years; female, 166) with rib CT scans. All CT scans were interpreted by two radiologists. The CT images were re-evaluated by primary readers with AI assistance in a blinded manner. Reference standards were established by two musculoskeletal radiologists. The re-evaluation results were then compared with those from the initial double-reading. The primary analysis focused on demonstrate superiority of AI-assisted sensitivity and the noninferiority of specificity at patient level, compared to standard double-reading. Secondary endpoints were at the rib and lesion levels. Stand-alone AI performance was also assessed. The influence of patient characteristics, report time, and RF features on the performance of AI and radiologists was investigated. At patient level, AI-assisted radiologists significantly improved sensitivity by 25.0% (95% CI: 10.5, 39.5; P < 0.001 for superiority), compared to double-reading, from 69.2% to 94.2%. And, the specificity of AI-assisted diagnosis (100%) was noninferior to double-reading (98.2%) with a difference of 1.8% (95% CI: -3.8, 7.4; P = 0.999 for noninferiority). The diagnostic accuracy of both radiologists and AI was influenced by patient gender, rib number, fracture location, and fracture type. Radiologist performance was affected by report time, whereas AI's diagnostic accuracy was influenced by patient age and the side of the rib involved. AI-assisted additional-reader workflow might be a feasible strategy to instead of traditional double-reading, potentially offering higher sensitivity and specificity compared to standard double-reading in real-word clinical practice.
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.