ArticleJournal of the Korean Society of Radiology2026
AI Solution for Identifying Actionable Abnormalities on Chest Radiographs: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.
Article in Journal of the Korean Society of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a commercial artificial intelligence (AI) solution in detecting actionable abnormalities (AAs) on chest radiographs (CRs) and to compare its performance with that of thoracic radiologists. Materials and Methods: Among 986,016 CRs performed at a single academic hospital between 2016 and 2021, 194 CRs were retrospectively identified as actionable based on critical value reports. Age- and sex-matched 388 normal CRs were selected as controls. A commercial AI solution capable of detecting 10 thoracic abnormalities was retrospectively applied to all CRs. Three thoracic radiologists independently reviewed the same dataset. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive rate, precision, F1 score, detection yield, and false-referral rate (FRR). Interobserver agreement and agreement between the AI and the radiologists were also assessed. Results: The AI solution demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance, with an AUC of 0.958, a sensitivity of 90.7%, and a specificity of 91.2%. Compared with the radiologists, the AI showed higher sensitivity and F1 score and achieved the highest detection yield (30.2%, Conclusion: The AI solution demonstrated diagnostic performance comparable to that of thoracic radiologists and may assist in detecting AAs when false-positive alerts are appropriately managed.
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.