ArticlePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2025
Impact of artificial intelligence assistance on bone scintigraphy diagnosis.
Article in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone scintigraphy is an important tool for detecting bone lesions. This study aimed to improve and evaluate the performance of our previously-developed deep learning-based model called MaligNet in helping nuclear medicine (NM) physicians interpret bone scan. Bone scintigraphy of 553 patients with imaging data from six-month follow-up records were split into training, validation, and test sets in a ratio of 353:100:100 to re-train MaligNet. Seven nuclear medicine physicians, including two junior and five senior physicians, were asked to segment and classify lesions in the test set images without and with AI assistance, which was the prediction of MaligNet. The improved performance of MaligNet was evaluated using the precision-recall (PR) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for lesion-based and patient-based classifications, respectively. The impact of AI assistance on physician reading was evaluated using reading time per case and malignancy diagnostic performance metrics. The re-trained MaligNet yielded considerably higher area under the PR curve (0.334 vs. 0.225) and higher area under the ROC curve (0.881 vs. 0.789) than the original model. For patient-based classification, AI assistance improved the average accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and precision of the physician by 2.14%, 0.89%, 2.38%, and 1.97%, respectively, while reducing the average reading time by 31.14%. For lesion-based classification, it improved physicians' average precision by 2.95%, but did not improve sensitivity. With AI assistance, junior physicians achieved diagnostic performances comparable to those of senior physicians. AI assistance with MaligNet improved bone scintigraphy diagnostic performance and showed promise in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40760395What 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.