ArticleCureus2025
Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Interpretation of Pulmonary Function Tests.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models in respiratory care: safety and clinical integration.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Joint statement from GOLD/GLI regarding the use of spirometry to define airflow obstruction and diagnose COPD.The European respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of Lung Diseases in the Artificial Intelligence Era.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Global Scoping Review of Diagnostic, Symptom-Based, and Outcome Prediction Approaches.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Advances in artificial intelligence applications for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- The Role and Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Pulmonary Function Tests: A Systematic Review.Current health sciences journalReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background As per the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma had a significant global burden. COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in the world and the second leading cause of death and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in India. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) are commonly used diagnostic tools. They include spirometry, body plethysmography, and diffusion capacity. In regions with limited resources, pulmonologists often only have access to spirometry. Additionally, PFT pattern interpretation is usually unreliable and subjective. Recent rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can bridge the gaps. Objectives This study aims to compare the accuracy of the predictions made by AI algorithms with pulmonologists using limited clinical data and spirometry. It also examines the consistency and accuracy of pulmonologists' predictions based on the same information. Methodology Different AI algorithms were trained, and their accuracy was evaluated. Spirometry and limited clinical data from 440 patients were interpreted by an AI algorithm and eight senior pulmonologists. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for the different patterns. Results Approximately 60% of the cases involved male patients, and about 70% were between the ages of 21 and 60. The Fleiss's kappa was 0.46. While the accuracy of pulmonologists against the gold standard was 65.82%, the accuracy of the AI was 86.59%. Conclusions PFTs, when interpreted by pulmonologists with limited clinical and spirometry data, have lower accuracy and higher variability. AI algorithms can consistently produce high accuracy. Adopting such technology among clinicians, especially in resource-constrained regions, could be pivotal for offering quality healthcare. In addition, it will also help in getting rid of inter-observer variability.
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.