ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2026
Automated evaluation of pulmonary lesion changes on chest radiograph during follow-up using semantic segmentation.
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop and validate a deep learning-based model utilizing lesion-specific segmentation to determine the changed/unchanged status of consolidation and pleural effusion in paired chest radiographs (CRs).
methodsThe model was trained using 5.178 CRs from a single institution for lesion segmentation. Paired CRs from the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) were used to determine the thresholds for change and temporal validation. Model performance was evaluated through the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and its accuracy was compared with that of a thoracic radiologist.
resultsIn the ED, the model achieved AUCs of 0.988 and 0.883 for consolidation and pleural effusion, respectively, with accuracies of 0.900 (36/40) and 0.825 (33/40). The radiologist showed accuracies of 0.975 (39/40) and 0.950 (38/40), respectively. In the ICU, model AUCs were 0.970 (consolidation) and 0.955 (pleural effusion), with accuracies of 0.875 (35/40) and 0.800 (32/40), respectively. Radiologist performance was 0.975 (39/40) for consolidation and 1.000 (40/40) for pleural effusion. No significant accuracy differences were observed between the model and radiologist for consolidation in the ICU or both targets in the ED (all
conclusionThe lesion-specific deep learning model was feasible for identifying interval changes in consolidation and pleural effusion on follow-up CRs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It could potentially be utilized for prioritizing interpretation, generating alerts, and extracting time-series data from multiple follow-up CRs.
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.