ArticleRespirology (Carlton, Vic.)2025
Reliability of Rapid On-Site Evaluation Achieved by Remote Sharing Systems (E-ROSE) and AI Algorithms (AI-ROSE) Compared With the Gold Standard in the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer.
Article in Respirology (Carlton, Vic.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent advances in artificial intelligence across interventional pulmonology: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Large Language Models Utility for Rapid On-Site Evaluation in Interventional Pulmonology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for rapid on-site evaluation of lymph node fine-needle aspiration: improving diagnostic efficiency and accuracy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted rapid on-site evaluation in liver biopsy: a diagnostic accuracy study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Reliability of Rapid On-Site Evaluation Achieved by Remote Sharing Systems (E-ROSE) and AI Algorithms (AI-ROSE) Compared With the Gold Standard in the Diagnosis of Lung Cancer.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn recent decades, artificial intelligence has seen significant development in various fields of medicine, including interventional pulmonology. The study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of innovative approaches to detect lung cancer on biopsy sample images (Rapid On-Site Evaluation, ROSE) compared to the diagnostic gold standard.
methodsWe conducted a multicentric study, comparing remote anatomopathological evaluation (E-ROSE) and machine learning algorithms (AI-ROSE) reliability in diagnosing lung cancer, evaluating 277 biopsy sample images, 25 of which were doubtful; to compare them with the definitive histological examination performed by the pathologist.
resultsE-ROSE achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 95.5%, with a sensitivity of 99.0% and specificity of 88.7%, including doubtful cases respectively 91.4%, 97.1%, and 81%. AI-ROSE showed a sensitivity of 96.4% and a specificity of 78.9%, with an accuracy of 92.5%. Including the doubtful cases, the best model achieved an accuracy of 85%, sensitivity of 97.4%, and specificity of 75.4%. The discriminative ability of the tests was compared both for positive/negative cases, showing Area Under ROC Curve (AUC) of 93.9% for E-ROSE and 87.6% for AI-ROSE; while including doubtful, AUC was 89.1% for E-ROSE and 86.4% for AI-ROSE.
conclusionsThe study suggests that the application of innovative methods such as E-ROSE and AI-ROSE could provide valuable support to interventional pulmonologists in the diagnostic process.
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.