ArticlePolish journal of radiology2025
Optimising strategies for artificial intelligence-assisted classification of viral pneumonias on CT imaging: a comparative study of selective and default approaches.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate how different artificial intelligence (AI)-powered approaches affect human performance in a demanding chest computed tomography (CT) task, such as distinguishing between viral pneumonias. Material and methods: Three radiologists blindly evaluated 220 chest CT scans of viral pneumonia cases ( Results: Radiologists demonstrated good-to-excellent agreement across all scenarios (AC2 = 0.77-0.81). Evaluation changes between S1 and S2 occurred in 18% of cases, with 29% of cases initially classified as CO-RADS = 3. In these equivocal cases, AI led to an average correct classification rate of 85%. Conversely, when radiologists were confident in their S1 diagnoses (CO-RADS ≠ 3), classification changes in S2 occurred in 7% of cases, preventing incorrect diagnoses in 45% of patients but resulting in missed correct classifications in 55%. Regarding diagnostic performance, S1 accuracy was 78%, with 15% of CO-RADS = 3 cases. In S2, under the default approach, accuracy increased to 81%, with 16% of CO-RADS = 3 cases, whereas the selective approach achieved 79% accuracy with only 10% of CO-RADS = 3 cases. Only the selective approach significantly reduced the proportion of equivocal cases ( Conclusions: A selective AI approach effectively reduces diagnostic uncertainty without introducing unnecessary complexity, emphasising its potential to optimise radiological workflows in challenging diagnostic scenarios.
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.