ArticleBJR artificial intelligence2024
Translating potential improvement in the precision and accuracy of lung nodule measurements on computed tomography scans by software derived from artificial intelligence into impact on clinical practice-a simulation study.
Article in BJR artificial intelligence, 2024. 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
Objectives: Accurate measurement of lung nodules is pivotal to lung cancer detection and management. Nodule size forms the main basis of risk categorization in existing guidelines. However, measurements can be highly variable between manual readers. This article explores the impact of potentially improved nodule size measurement assisted by generic artificial intelligence (AI)-derived software on clinical management compared with manual measurement. Methods: The simulation study created a baseline cohort of people with lung nodules, guided by nodule size distributions reported in the literature. Precision and accuracy were simulated to emulate measurement of nodule size by radiologists with and without the assistance of AI-derived software and by the software alone. Nodule growth was modelled over a 4-year time frame, allowing evaluation of management strategies based on existing clinical guidelines. Results: Measurement assisted by AI-derived software increased cancer detection compared to an unassisted radiologist for a combined solid and sub-solid nodule population (62.5% vs 61.4%). AI-assisted measurement also correctly identified more benign nodules (95.8% vs 95.4%); however, it was associated with over an additional month of surveillance on average (5.12 vs 3.95 months). On average, with AI assistance people with cancer are diagnosed faster, and people without cancer are monitored longer. Conclusions: In this simulation, the potential benefits of improved accuracy and precision associated with AI-based diameter measurement is associated with additional monitoring of non-cancerous nodules. AI may offer additional benefits not captured in this simulation, and it is important to generate data supporting these, and adjust guidelines as necessary. Advances in knowledge: This article shows the effects of greater measurement accuracy associated with AI assistance compared with unassisted measurement.
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.