ArticleBMC health services research2025
Cost-effectiveness of novel diagnostic tools for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the United States.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
- Clinical Utility of an FDA-Authorized Artificial Intelligence Imaging Platform in Interstitial Lung Disease Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNovel non-invasive machine learning algorithms may improve accuracy and reduce the need for biopsy when diagnosing idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for IPF.
methodsWe developed a decision analytic model to evaluate diagnostic strategies for IPF in the United States. To assess the full spectrum of costs and benefits, we compared four interventions: a machine learning diagnostic algorithm, a genomic classifier, a biopsy-all strategy, and a treat-all strategy. The analysis was conducted from the health sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome measures were costs, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) gained, and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) based on the average of 10,000 probabilistic runs of the model.
resultsCompared to a biopsy-all strategy the machine learning algorithm and genomic classifer reduced diagnostic-related costs by $14,876 and $3,884, respectively. Use of the machine learning algorithm consistently reduced diagnostic costs. When including downstream treatment costs and benefits of anti-fibrotic treatment, the machine learning algorithm had an ICER of $331,069 per QALY gained compared to the biopsy-all strategy. The genomic classifier had a higher ICER of $390,043 per QALY gained, while the treat-all strategy had the highest ICER of $3,245,403 per QALY gained. Results were sensitive to changes in various input parameters including IPF treatment costs, sensitivity and specificity of novel screening tools, and the rate of additional diagnostics following inconclusive results. High treatment costs were found to drive overall cost regardless of the diagnostic method. As treatment costs lowered, the supplemental diagnostic tools became increasingly cost-effective.
conclusionsNovel tools for diagnosing IPF reduced diagnostic costs, while overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were high due to treatment costs. New IPF diagnosis approaches may become more favourable with lower-cost treatments for IPF.
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.