ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Performance of Artificial Intelligence and Radiologists in Detecting Lung Nodules and Breast Lesions on CT and MRI: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review evaluates the comparative effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI) and radiologists in the detection of breast lesions and pulmonary nodules using mammography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. A comprehensive literature search identified six high-quality studies, including randomized controlled trials, prospective clinical investigations, and large-scale real-world implementation studies. Although liver imaging was included in the initial search strategy, no eligible comparative studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified; therefore, the final analysis focused exclusively on breast and lung imaging. Across these settings, AI consistently demonstrated non-inferior or superior diagnostic accuracy compared to radiologists, with additional benefits such as reduced workload, shorter assessment times, improved triage efficiency, and enhanced predictive values. While large population-based studies confirmed the scalability of AI in cancer screening, smaller diagnostic studies highlighted its ability to support radiologists in complex cases. However, heterogeneity in study design, imaging modality, and outcome reporting, as well as concerns regarding generalizability and potential bias, underscore the need for further validation. These findings support the controlled integration of AI into clinical workflows to improve diagnostic performance and healthcare efficiency.
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.