ArticleRespiratory research2026
Diagnostic accuracy and cost-efficiency of ChatGPT in EIT-based pendelluft detection for mechanically ventilated patients: a multicenter study.
Article in Respiratory research, 2026. 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.
- Protective Ventilation During Controlled and Partial Ventilatory Support in ARDS: Clinical-Physiological Background and Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionElectrical impedance tomography (EIT) enables real-time bedside monitoring of regional lung ventilation, but its clinical adoption is limited by complex data interpretation requiring substantial expertise and time. Pendelluft—the asynchronous movement of air between lung regions—is an important indicator of ventilation heterogeneity and poor outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. There remains an unmet need for accurate, efficient, and clinically interpretable automated pendelluft detection tools.
methodsIn this retrospective multicenter study, we developed and validated an automated system for pendelluft detection using a ChatGPT-generated deep learning architecture. Consecutive mechanically ventilated adults from three tertiary hospitals in China (January 2020–December 2024) were screened; 278 patients met inclusion criteria. High-resolution EIT signals were processed using a hybrid model—the initial code generated by ChatGPT (GPT-4), further optimized by clinicians—which included a modified ResNet-34 encoder, bidirectional LSTM with self-attention, and Grad-CAM interpretability with integrated safety workflow. Primary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, AUC-ROC) and analytic efficiency (processing time, cost per case) compared to expert review and conventional machine learning models.
resultsThe ChatGPT-generated system demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy for automated pendelluft detection, yielding an AUC-ROC of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87–0.95), sensitivity of 89.6%, and specificity of 92.1%. These metrics significantly exceeded those of standard CNN (AUC 0.85), random forest (AUC 0.82), and SVM (AUC 0.79) models. Median analysis time per case was reduced from 12.5 min (manual expert review) to 2.8 min (AI system), with an average cost saving of 200 RMB per patient. Higher pendelluft grades correlated strongly with worse clinical outcomes, including increased 28-day mortality (25.4% vs. 9.0%, adjusted HR 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6–4.9, P = 0.001), fewer ventilator-free days, and greater risk of complications. The workflow demonstrated high operational reliability, robust safety, and strong agreement with clinician assessments (Cohen’s κ = 0.86).
conclusionsThe ChatGPT-generated AI system offers an accurate, rapid, and cost-effective solution for automated EIT analysis and pendelluft detection in mechanically ventilated patients. This novel workflow facilitates real-time, explainable clinical decision support, and may help optimize ventilator management and improve patient outcomes.
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.