Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40471487›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2025

Preliminary analysis of AI-based thyroid nodule evaluation in a non-subspecialist endocrinology setting.

Pablo Fernández Velasco, Lucia Estévez Asensio, Beatriz Torres, Ana Ortolá, Emilia Gómez Hoyos, Esther Delgado, Daniel de Luís, Gonzalo Díaz Soto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Pablo Fernández VelascoDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain. pablo.fernandez.velasco@estudiantes.uva.es.
Lucia Estévez AsensioDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Beatriz TorresDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Ana OrtoláDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Emilia Gómez HoyosDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Esther DelgadoDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Daniel de LuísDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.
Gonzalo Díaz SotoDepartment of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Clínico Universitario Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThyroid nodules are commonly evaluated using ultrasound-based risk stratification systems, which rely on subjective descriptors. Artificial intelligence (AI) may improve assessment, but its effectiveness in non-subspecialist settings is unclear. This study evaluated the impact of an AI-based decision support system (AI-DSS) on thyroid nodule ultrasound assessments by general endocrinologists (GE) without subspecialty thyroid imaging training.

methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted on 80 patients undergoing thyroid ultrasound in GE outpatient clinics. Thyroid ultrasound was performed based on clinical judgment as part of routine care by GE. Images were retrospectively analyzed using an AI-DSS (Koios DS), independently of clinician assessments. AI-DSS results were compared with initial GE evaluations and, when referred, with expert evaluations at a subspecialized thyroid nodule clinic (TNC). Agreement in ultrasound features, risk classification by the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR TI-RADS) and American Thyroid Association guidelines, and referral recommendations was assessed.

resultsAI-DSS differed notably from GE, particularly assessing nodule composition (solid: 80%vs.36%,p < 0.01), echogenicity (hypoechoic:52%vs.16%,p < 0.01), and echogenic foci (microcalcifications:10.7%vs.1.3%,p < 0.05). AI-DSS classification led to a higher referral rate compared to GE (37.3%vs.30.7%, not statistically significant). Agreement between AI-DSS and GE in ACR TI-RADS scoring was moderate (r = 0.337;p < 0.001), but improved when comparing GE to AI-DSS and TNC subspecialist (r = 0.465;p < 0.05 and r = 0.607;p < 0.05, respectively).

conclusionIn a non-subspecialist setting, non-adjunct AI-DSS use did not significantly improve risk stratification or reduce hypothetical referrals. The system tended to overestimate risk, potentially leading to unnecessary procedures. Further optimization is required for AI to function effectively in low-prevalence environment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceThyroid GlandThyroid NoduleAdultAgedEndocrinologistsEndocrinologyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentUltrasonographyACR TI-RADSAI-DSSArtificial intelligenceATA guidelinesGeneral endocrinologyRisk stratificationThyroid noduleUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID40471487
PMCPMC12370550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.