ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of an Artificial Intelligence Tool for Pulmonary Abnormalities in Chest Radiographs: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction A retrospective, in-clinic study was conducted to validate the diagnostic performance of the Oxipit ChestEye™ AI tool in interpreting chest radiographs and to evaluate its impact on clinical outcomes and healthcare system efficiency. The performance of the AI model was compared with that of radiologists. Methods Chest radiographs from 1,470 patients, obtained from a public healthcare institution, were analyzed for nine pulmonary conditions: consolidation, heart enlargement, interstitial markers, linear atelectasis, no cardiopulmonary findings, nodule, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, and tuberculosis. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and F1 scores were calculated for Oxipit ChestEye™ and compared with radiologists' diagnoses, which served as the reference standard. Results The AI tool demonstrated accuracy ranging from 0.79 to 1.00 across the nine conditions evaluated. Sensitivity ranged from 0.25 to 1.00, and specificity ranged from 0.65 to 1.00. In differentiating between "Normal" and "Altered" categories, the AI model achieved an accuracy of 0.78. The F1 score for "Normal" was 0.86, whereas for "Altered," it was 0.52. Conclusions Oxipit ChestEye™ demonstrated high accuracy and efficiency in detecting and triaging pulmonary abnormalities in chest radiographs. While it is a useful tool to supplement the work of the radiologists, helping to reduce diagnostic time and improve patient care, it should not replace human radiologists.
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.