ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2025
Pilot Evaluation of a Deep Learning Model for Nasogastric Tube Verification on Chest Radiographs: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate confirmation of nasogastric (NG) tubes is essential for patient safety, but delays and variability in interpretation remain common in clinical practice. Deep learning (DL) models have shown potential for assisting in this task, but real-world performance, particularly in detecting malpositioned tubes, remains insufficiently characterized.
methodsWe conducted a pilot evaluation of a previously developed DL model using 135 chest radiographs from Kangwon National University Hospital. Expert physicians established the reference standard. Model performance was assessed and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and precision recall curve (PRC) analyses were performed. Differences between correctly classified and misclassified cases were examined using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Fisher's exact tests to explore potential clinical or radiographic contributors to model failure.
resultsThe model correctly classified 129 of 135 cases. The sensitivity was 96.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 92.2-98.9%), specificity was 85.7% (95% CI: 42.2-97.7%), positive predictive value (PPV) was 99.2% (95% CI: 96.1-99.9%), negative predictive value (NPV) was 54.5% (95% CI: 25.4-80.8%), balanced accuracy was 90.8%, and F1-score was 0.976. The area under the ROC curve was 0.970 (95% CI: 0.929-1.000) and that under the PRC was 0.727 (95% CI: 0.289-1.000), reflecting substantial uncertainty related to the very small number of incomplete cases (
conclusionsThe DL model performed well in identifying correctly positioned NG tubes but demonstrated limited and unstable performance for detecting incomplete placements. Given the safety implications of misclassification, the model should be used only as an assistive tool with mandatory physician oversight. Larger, multi-center studies with greater representation of incomplete cases are required to obtain more reliable estimates and support safe clinical implementation.
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.