ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025
Prospective validation of an artificial intelligence assessment in a cohort of applicants seeking financial compensation for asbestosis (PROSBEST).
Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ERS Congress 2025: highlights from the Thoracic Oncology Assembly.ERJ open research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAsbestosis, a rare pneumoconiosis marked by diffuse pulmonary fibrosis, arises from prolonged asbestos exposure. Its diagnosis, guided by the Helsinki criteria, relies on exposure history, clinical findings, radiology, and lung function. However, interobserver variability complicates diagnoses and financial compensation. This study prospectively validated the sensitivity of an AI-driven assessment for asbestosis compensation in the Netherlands. Secondary objectives included evaluating specificity, accuracy, predictive values, area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC-AUC), area under the precision-recall curve (PR-AUC), and interobserver variability. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween September 2020 and July 2022, 92 adult compensation applicants were assessed using both AI models and pulmonologists' reviews based on Dutch Health Council criteria. The AI model assigned an asbestosis probability score: negative (< 35), uncertain (35-66), or positive (≥ 66). Uncertain cases underwent additional reviews for a final determination.
resultsThe AI assessment demonstrated sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95), specificity of 0.85 (0.76-0.97), accuracy of 0.87 (0.79-0.93), ROC-AUC of 0.92 (0.84-0.97), and PR-AUC of 0.95 (0.89-0.99). Despite strong metrics, the sensitivity target of 98% was unmet. Pulmonologist reviews showed moderate to substantial interobserver variability.
conclusionThe AI-driven approach demonstrated robust accuracy but insufficient sensitivity for validation. Addressing interobserver variability and incorporating objective fibrosis measurements could enhance future reliability in clinical and compensation settings. RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The AI-driven assessment for financial compensation of asbestosis showed adequate accuracy but did not meet the required sensitivity for validation. KEY POINTS: We prospectively assessed the sensitivity of an AI-driven assessment procedure for financial compensation of asbestosis. The AI-driven asbestosis probability score underperformed across all metrics compared to internal testing. The AI-driven assessment procedure achieved a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95). It did not meet the predefined sensitivity target.
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.