ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2026
Utility of the virtual imaging trials methodology for objective characterization of AI systems and training data.
Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 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
Purpose: The credibility of artificial intelligence (AI) models for medical imaging continues to be a challenge, affected by the diversity of models, the data used to train the models, and the applicability of their combination to produce reproducible results for new data. We aimed to explore whether emerging virtual imaging trial (VIT) methodologies can provide an objective resource to approach this challenge. Approach: We conducted this study for the case example of COVID-19 diagnosis using clinical and virtual computed tomography (CT) and chest radiography (CXR) processed with convolutional neural networks. Multiple AI models were developed and tested using 3D ResNet-like and 2D EfficientNetv2 architectures across diverse datasets. Results: Model performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and the DeLong method for AUC confidence intervals. The models trained on the most diverse datasets showed the highest external testing performance, with AUC values ranging from 0.73 to 0.76 for CT and 0.70 to 0.73 for CXR. Internal testing yielded higher AUC values (0.77 to 0.85 for CT and 0.77 to 1.0 for CXR), highlighting a substantial drop in performance during external validation, which underscores the importance of diverse and comprehensive training and testing data. Most notably, the VIT approach provided an objective assessment of the utility of diverse models and datasets while offering insight into the influence of dataset characteristics, patient factors, and imaging physics on AI efficacy. Conclusions: The VIT approach enhances model transparency and reliability, offering nuanced insights into the factors driving AI performance and bridging the gap between experimental and clinical settings.
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.