Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42256489›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2026

Airway segmentation on CT - A systematic review of machine learning tools.

Nada Lsloum, Ahmed Maiter, Turki Alnasser, Ahod Albylwi, Khalid Alghamdi, Michael Sharkey, Alireza Hokmabadi, Mahan Salehi, Krit Dwivedi, Chris Johns and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Nada LsloumSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Ahmed MaiterSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Turki AlnasserSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Ahod AlbylwiSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Khalid AlghamdiSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Michael SharkeySchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Alireza HokmabadiSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Mahan SalehiDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Krit DwivediSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Chris JohnsDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Andrew J SwiftSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Samer AlabedSchool of Medicine and Population Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Airway assessment on computed tomography (CT) can yield clinically useful information for diagnosis, treatment planning and monitoring in respiratory diseases. Manual airway segmentation is time-consuming, prone to error and poorly reproducible. This systematic review aimed to appraise machine learning (ML) methods for fully automated airway segmentation in chest CT imaging. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched on October 28, 2025, for studies which used fully automated ML methods for airway segmentation on CT and reported quantitative performance metrics. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Must AI Criteria-10 (MAIC-10) checklist. PROSPERO [CRD42025635504]. Results: Thirty-two studies (28 used deep learning (DL)) published between 2010 and 2025 were included. Airway segmentation was performed on non-contrast CT scans in most studies. Voxel-wise accuracy metrics were generally high with Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) values ranging between 83% and 96%. Airway-specific topological metrics: branch detection rate (BD) and tree length detection rate (TD) showed broader variability (60-95% and 54-95% respectively), with DL methods consistently outperforming classical ML approaches. Fifteen studies conducted external validation (EXACT'09 test set used in 9/15). MAIC-10 was moderate and ranged from 6 to 8 out of 10, with lowest reporting in safety/privacy (31%), explainability (31%) and transparency (53%). Conclusion: ML models achieved strong airway segmentation accuracy but showed considerable variation in topological completeness. Standardised evaluation frameworks and the adoption of more diverse datasets are needed to strengthen model generalisability and support translation into clinical practice.

Indexed as

AirwayArtificial intelligenceChest CTMachine learningSegmentationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42256489
PMCPMC13240772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.