Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164236›Full record

ArticleBreathe (Sheffield, England)2026

Artificial intelligence for pleural effusion and pneumothorax detection on thoracic ultrasound: an educational viewpoint on the promise, pitfalls and path forward.

Guido Marchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breathe (Sheffield, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Guido MarchiPulmonology Unit, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Department, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6122-7792

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thoracic ultrasound (TUS) is a key bedside tool for detecting pleural effusion and pneumothorax, offering high sensitivity, portability and radiation-free assessment. However, its reliability is limited by operator dependency and variable training, posing challenges in emergency, intensive care and resource-limited settings. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential adjunct to support TUS interpretation, with deep learning algorithms showing promising accuracy in research studies. Evidence suggests AI may perform well for straightforward cases, yet performance declines significantly during external validation and for complex or low-quality images, precisely where clinical decision support is most needed. Five potential scenarios for AI application are identified: emergency triage, intensive care unit monitoring, post-procedural safety checks, deployment in resource-limited environments, and educational feedback for trainees. Despite these opportunities, current AI systems remain immature: methodological limitations, operator-dependence and lack of real-world outcome data constrain safe clinical adoption. Rigorous prospective trials, multisite validation, standardised reporting, and integration of quality assurance are essential before routine use. At present, AI-assisted TUS should be regarded as a research and educational tool rather than a substitute for clinical judgment. Thoughtful development and cautious implementation are required to transform AI from an experimental promise into a reliable, patient-centred clinical resource.

Identifiers

PMID42164236
PMCPMC13184699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.