ArticleCurrent medical imaging2025
Artificial Intelligence for Detecting Pulmonary Embolisms
Article in Current medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lesion feature enhancement and boundary-aware fusion for pulmonary embolism recognition on CT images.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- External validation of a commercial AI system for pulmonary embolism detection on chest CTPA: a multicenter study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- AI-Enhanced Deep Learning Framework for Pulmonary Embolism Detection in CT Angiography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDetecting Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is critical for effective patient care, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown promise in supporting radiologists in this task. Integrating AI into radiology workflows requires not only evaluation of its diagnostic accuracy but also assessment of its acceptance among clinical staff.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the performance of an AI algorithm in detecting pulmonary embolisms (PEs) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) and to assess the level of acceptance of the algorithm among radiology department staff.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed anonymized computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) data from a university clinic. Surveys were conducted at three and nine months after the implementation of a commercially available AI algorithm designed to flag CTPA scans with suspected PE. A thoracic radiologist and a cardiac radiologist served as the reference standard for evaluating the performance of the algorithm. The AI analyzed 59 CTPA cases during the initial evaluation and 46 cases in the follow-up assessment.
resultsIn the first evaluation, the AI algorithm demonstrated a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 94.3%. By the second evaluation, its performance had improved, achieving a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 96.7%. Radiologists' acceptance of the AI tool increased over time. Nevertheless, despite this growing acceptance, many radiologists expressed a preference for hiring an additional physician over adopting the AI solution if the costs were comparable. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity of the AI algorithm, with improved performance over time and a reduced rate of unanalyzed scans. These improvements likely reflect both algorithmic refinement and better data integration. Departmental feedback indicated growing user confidence and trust in the tool. However, many radiologists continued to prefer the addition of a resident over reliance on the algorithm. Overall, the AI showed promise as a supportive "second-look" tool in emergency radiology settings.
conclusionThe AI algorithm demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to that reported in similar studies for detecting PE on CTPA, with both sensitivity and specificity showing improvement over time. Radiologists' acceptance of the algorithm increased throughout the study period, underscoring its potential as a complementary tool to physician expertise in 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.