ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Use of artificial intelligence-assisted measurement of aortic diameter in clinical decision making about abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
Abstract
objectivesDecisions to perform abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair are dependent on aneurysm size, but variation in size measurement leads to inconsistency in management. AI-assisted systems have potential to improve repeatability of measuring aortic dimensions. This study compared the repeatability and agreement in clinical decision-making between using artificial intelligence (AI)-automated and traditional semi-automated methods for measuring abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size. MATERIALS AND
methodsComputed tomography angiogram scans from 142 patients who had scans at baseline (n = 142), 1 year (n = 100), 2 years (n = 56) and 3 years (n = 4) were analysed using semi-automated and AI-assisted automated systems. Three observers measured maximal AAA diameter and volume twice with each method. Intra- and inter-observer repeatability were assessed using reproducibility coefficients (RC). Measurements were used to decide if AAA repair was required according to clinical guidelines, and agreement was evaluated using Kappa coefficients (K). The ability of AI-assisted measurements to predict actual requirement for AAA repair was assessed using Cox proportional hazard analysis.
resultsAI-assisted measurements had perfect intra- and inter-observer repeatability (RC = 0) which were significantly superior to traditional measurements (RC for diameter: 1.9-5.6 mm; volume: 7.8-22.6 cm³, p < 0.001). Agreement about AAA repair was superior using AI-assisted (K = 1) than traditional (K = 0.55-0.70) measurements. Baseline AI-assisted measurements predicted actual requirement for AAA repair (Hazard ratio, HR, per mm diameter increase 1.12, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.03-1.22, HR per cm³ volume increase 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.02, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe findings suggest AI-assisted measurement of AAA size would enhance the consistency of decisions about AAA repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41454943What 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.