ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Automated interstitial lung abnormalities detection at CT: external validation and potential recognition of traction bronchiectasis/bronchiolectasis.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAn artificial intelligence (AI) system for detecting interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) was previously developed but requires external validation. This study aimed to examine the robustness across different populations and investigate associations between the system outputs and traction bronchiectasis/bronchiolectasis severity patterns. MATERIALS AND
methodsCT scans from population-based samples of the Rotterdam Study (2018-2019) and the Age Gene/Environment Susceptibility Reykjavik (AGES-Reykjavik) Study (baseline CT: 2002-2006, follow-up CT: 2007-2011) were used in this secondary analysis of the two cohorts. The AI system calculated ILA probability score (AI score) in the range from 0 to 1. Three experienced readers evaluated independently all CT scans for ILA, and two chest radiologists assessed traction bronchiectasis/bronchiolectasis using the 4-scale traction bronchiectasis/bronchiolectasis index (TBI) for severity by consensus. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for statistical analysis.
resultsThe system analyzed 932 CT scans of the Rotterdam Study (mean participant age, 79.6 years ± 4.3 (SD), 482 women) and 5242 CT scans of the AGES-Reykjavik Study (mean participant age, 76.4 years ± 5.6, 3032 women), and achieved area under the ROC curve of 0.841 (95% CI 0.804, 0.879) and 0.823 (95% CI 0.798, 0.847), respectively. AI scores correlated with readers' certainty, decreasing from unanimous ILA cases to No-ILA cases. Higher baseline AI scores correlated with greater severity of traction bronchiectasis/bronchiolectasis (TBI-3: 0.931 [IQR, 0.911-0.932], TBI-2: 0.738 [IQR, 0.406-0.880], TBI-1: 0.537 [IQR, 0.317-0.761], TBI-0: 0.250 [IQR, 0.136-0.455]).
conclusionThe system demonstrated robust ILA detection performance across different populations, with AI scores showing associations with traction bronchiectasis/bronchiolectasis severity.
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.