ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating AI Models for Pneumothorax Detection on Chest Radiographs: Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Trade-Offs.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Pneumothorax is a critical condition where timely recognition on chest radiographs is essential, particularly in emergency and resource-limited settings. Emerging artificial intelligence (AI) systems capable of native image interpretation offer potential to augment clinical workflows, yet their diagnostic reliability remains underexplored. Methods We evaluated two state-of-the-art AI models on 2,000 publicly available frontal chest radiographs, equally divided between pneumothorax-positive and pneumothorax-negative cases. Models were prompted with standardized diagnostic instructions emphasizing pleural line visualization, asymmetry in lung translucency, and the deep sulcus sign. Predictions were assessed against reference diagnoses using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. Results One model achieved balanced diagnostic accuracy (64%) with a precision of 66% and a recall of 57%, while the other demonstrated higher sensitivity (88%) but lower precision (55%). These divergent profiles underscore trade-offs between minimizing false negatives and limiting false positives. Conclusions AI systems show promise for pneumothorax detection on chest radiographs but exhibit distinct diagnostic biases that must be carefully matched to the clinical context. Balanced performance models may be suitable for general screening, whereas high-sensitivity models may better support triage workflows. Rigorous validation, integration strategies, and human supervision remain essential before deployment in real-world clinical practice.
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.