ReviewCureus2025
Performance of FDA-Approved AI Algorithms in Detecting Acute Pulmonary Embolism on Computed Tomographic Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA): A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Retrospective Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Automated right ventricle-to-left ventricle diameter ratio predicts ICU stay for acute pulmonary embolism on CTPA examinations in the emergency department.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Article
- 3D region-growing nnU-Net improves pulmonary embolism detection on CTPA: a dual-cohort validation study.European radiology experimental · 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
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal condition requiring prompt and accurate diagnosis. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is the gold standard for PE detection, but its interpretation is time-intensive and subject to human error. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms, offer promising tools to enhance diagnostic efficiency and accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the diagnostic performance of FDA-approved ML algorithms for detecting acute PE on CTPA. A comprehensive literature search across six databases identified six retrospective studies encompassing 9,102 CTPA scans, all of which assessed either the Aidoc or CINA-PE algorithms. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93% (95% CI: 88%-95%) and 98% (95% CI: 93%-100%), respectively, indicating high diagnostic accuracy across real-world datasets. All included studies demonstrated low risk of bias according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) assessments. These findings support the integration of FDA-approved ML tools into radiological workflows as adjuncts to reduce diagnostic errors and improve triage. However, prospective trials are needed to assess their impact on clinical decision-making, workflow efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and patient outcomes.
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.