ReviewCureus2026
Diagnostic Performance of Artificial Intelligence in Detecting COVID-19 Pneumonia on Chest Imaging.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for rapid, accurate, and accessible diagnostic tools. Chest imaging modalities, including chest radiography (CXR) and computed tomography (CT), provided valuable diagnostic information and prompted the development of artificial intelligence (AI) systems to support image interpretation and improve workflow efficiency. This literature review synthesizes current evidence on the diagnostic performance, limitations, and clinical implications of AI models in COVID-19 pneumonia detection through CXR and CT evaluation. A PubMed search was conducted through October 2025 to identify studies evaluating AI systems for the detection of COVID-19 pneumonia using CXR and CT. Studies reporting diagnostic performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or area under the curve (AUC), were included. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. CXR-based AI systems demonstrated sensitivities from 80% to 98% and specificities from 82% to 96%, often comparable to radiologist performance. CT-based AI models achieved accuracies between 90% and 96%. AI models demonstrated strong internal diagnostic performance on CXR and CT but showed reduced accuracy with external validation, underscoring limitations related to generalizability and retrospective study designs. AI models demonstrate promising diagnostic performance for detecting COVID-19 pneumonia on chest imaging and may enhance radiologist efficiency. However, challenges related to generalizability, model adaptability, and clinician trust remain. Future research should prioritize external validation and transparent reporting to ensure the safe and effective integration of AI into 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.