ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Commercial AI for CT lung cancer screening: product capabilities, coverage of nodule management tasks and supporting evidence.
Article in European radiology, 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
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize the capabilities of CE-marked AI products for lung nodule analysis in lung cancer screening (LCS), quantify their coverage of tasks defined in nodule management recommendations, and assess their peer-reviewed evidence. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix core tasks in LCS (nodule detection, classification, measurement, growth assessment, malignancy risk estimation, and structured management) were derived from 4 nodule management recommendations: Lung-RADS 2022, British Thoracic Society (BTS) guidelines, European Union Position Statement (EUPS), and European Society of Thoracic Imaging (ESTI). Products were identified through www.healthairegister.com . Vendors confirmed capabilities using a standardized questionnaire; public documentation supplemented non-responders. Task coverage was calculated as the percentage of functional overlap (0-100%) per recommendation. Peer-reviewed evidence was evaluated using a six-level efficacy framework and assessed for study characteristics.
resultsIn total, 16 products from 16 vendors were included; 10 vendors completed questionnaires. Analysis showed that 14 products detect and measure solid and subsolid nodules, 12 support growth assessment, and 9 provide malignancy risk estimation (PanCan in 5, AI-based scores in 4). No product provides support for endobronchial or cystic lesions. High task coverage (> 75%) was observed in 10 products for EUPS and 4 for BTS, whereas no product achieved high coverage for Lung-RADS or ESTI. Overall, 60 peer-reviewed studies were identified; 7% were prospective and evidence clustered at lower efficacy levels: 70% assessed diagnostic accuracy, while none reported patient outcomes or societal impact.
conclusionNumerous CE-certified AI products could support CT-based lung cancer screening, but gaps in task coverage and predominantly lower-level evidence necessitate cautious, monitored implementation. KEY POINTS: Question Do commercially available AI products for lung nodule analysis functionally cover international nodule management recommendation-defined tasks, and what peer-reviewed clinical evidence supports them? Findings AI products support standard nodule detection and measurement in line with management recommendations but lack support for endobronchial or cystic lesions and high-level clinical evidence. Clinical relevance CE-marked AI products can assist radiologists with core lung cancer screening tasks, but capability gaps exist. Limited high-level clinical evidence complicates integrating AI into guidelines, securing reimbursement, and formulating recommendations for its use in lung cancer screening programs.
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.