ArticleRadiology advances2024
Incidental pulmonary embolism in abdominal CT: detection rate and characteristics with artificial intelligence.
Article in Radiology advances, 2024. 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.
- Correlating Patient Symptoms and CT Morphology in AI-Detected Incidental Pulmonary Embolisms.Diagnostics (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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Abdominal CT is a mainstay in the evaluation of abdominal infections, trauma, oncology, and postoperative complications. Pulmonary embolism is a common complication, but there is a risk that these ancillary findings are overlooked. In addition, data on detection rate and characteristics of incidental pulmonary embolism (iPE) on abdominal CT are lacking. Purpose: The current study compared the period before and after implementing an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for iPE detection regarding detection rate and characteristics. Material and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on abdominal CTs between August 1, 2019, and January 31, 2021 (before AI implementation, 8026 studies) and August 1, 2021, and January 31, 2023 (after AI implementation, 8765 studies). iPE cases were identified through text search and manually confirmed. Study indication and urgency were recorded for iPE patients, and the most proximal iPE level was assessed. A total of 1000 cases after AI implementation were randomly selected and manually reviewed for AI accuracy analysis. Results: A total of 5876 patients with a mean age of 63.6 ± 17.7 years were included before AI implementation, and 6310 patients with a mean age of 63.2 ± 18.3 years after AI implementation. The iPE detection rate was higher after AI implementation, 0.57% (50/8765 studies) vs 0.12% (10/8026), Conclusion: Implementing AI for iPE detection and triage increased the iPE detection rate in abdominal CT. The AI sensitivity was moderate, with very few AI false positives.
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.