ArticleCurrent health sciences journal
Impact of AI Assistance on Radiologist Accuracy for Lung Nodule Detection on Chest CT.
Article in Current health sciences journal. 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
backgroundAccurate identification of pulmonary nodules as early-stage lung cancers is crucial to decrease the number of deaths and illnesses caused by lung cancer. Artificial Intelligence has the potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and specificity in detecting lung cancer.
methodsChest CT scanning from 300 patients with an age range between 40 and 80 years old were analysed comparing the pulmonary nodules detection rate (number of lung nodules) between AI-assisted reading, non-AI-assisted reading and the AI-system report standalone. Detected nodules, missed nodules (false negatives), and false-positive findings were analysed.
resultsAI-assisted radiologists missed significantly fewer nodules (p<0.001) and achieved an almost perfect correlation (r~1.00) with expert reference values, reducing the mean absolute error (MAE) from 9.78 to 0.46. Additionally, AI increased detection sensitivity from 60% to 98% and reduced false negatives from 3,083 to 145, optimizing both diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.
conclusionsAI-assisted reading has shown to be beneficial in the detection of lung nodules compared to relying solely on radiologist observation. This suggests that an AI-powered system for evaluating lung nodules has the potential to become a valuable assistant tool in clinical practice. By combining the skills of radiologists with AI assistance, a new approach may emerge, leading to enhanced detection of lung nodules and encouraging the integration of AI in lung cancer screening initiatives.
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.