ArticleRadiology. Artificial intelligence2025
Collaborative Integration of AI and Human Expertise to Improve Detection of Chest Radiograph Abnormalities.
Article in Radiology. Artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Leveraging imperfection with MEDLEY: a multi-model approach harnessing bias in medical AI.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose To develop a collaborative artificial intelligence (AI) system that integrates eye gaze data and radiology reports to improve diagnostic accuracy in chest radiograph interpretation by identifying and correcting perceptual errors. Materials and Methods This retrospective study used public datasets REFLACX (Reports and Eye-Tracking Data for Localization of Abnormalities in Chest X-rays) and EGD-CXR (Eye Gaze Data for Chest X-rays) to develop a collaborative AI solution, named Collaborative Radiology Expert (CoRaX). It uses a large multimodal model to analyze image embeddings, eye gaze data, and radiology reports, aiming to rectify perceptual errors in chest radiology. The proposed system was evaluated using two simulated error datasets featuring random and uncertain alterations of five abnormalities. Evaluation focused on the system's referral-making process, the quality of referrals, and its performance within collaborative diagnostic settings. Results In the random masking-based error dataset, 28.0% (93 of 332) of abnormalities were altered. The system successfully corrected 21.3% (71 of 332) of these errors, with 6.6% (22 of 332) remaining unresolved. The accuracy of the system in identifying the correct regions of interest for missed abnormalities was 63.0% (95% CI: 59.0, 68.0), and 85.7% (240 of 280) of interactions with radiologists were deemed satisfactory, meaning that the system provided diagnostic aid to radiologists. In the uncertainty-masking-based error dataset, 43.9% (146 of 332) of abnormalities were altered. The system corrected 34.6% (115 of 332) of these errors, with 9.3% (31 of 332) unresolved. The accuracy of predicted regions of missed abnormalities for this dataset was 58.0% (95% CI: 55.0, 62.0), and 78.4% (233 of 297) of interactions were satisfactory. Conclusion The CoRaX system can collaborate efficiently with radiologists and address perceptual errors across various abnormalities in chest radiographs.
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.