ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Diagnostic performance of commercial AI systems versus participating radiologists for pulmonary nodule detection in routine clinical practice.
Article in Japanese journal 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of two commercial artificial intelligence (AI) systems versus that of radiologists on routine clinical chest computed tomography (CT) and to identify the imaging characteristics that limit AI performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the 5-mm-slice chest CT of 102 patients (353 nodules or masses). The detection performance of two board-certified radiologists and two commercial AI systems was compared against an expert-established reference standard. Sensitivity, false positives (FPs) per scan, and positive predictive value (PPV) were evaluated. Logistic regression identified factors influencing detection.
resultsThe radiologists demonstrated higher sensitivity (90.4-94.3%) than the AI systems (80.2-89.2%) and significantly fewer FPs per scan (1.61-3.56 vs. 5.28-7.97; p < 0.001), resulting in superior PPVs. Multivariate analysis revealed divergent limitations: radiologists were challenged by intrinsic features (e.g., ground-glass nodules [GGNs]), whereas AI performance was degraded by case-level complexity (multiple nodules), specific locations (central), and atypical morphologies (large masses).
conclusionIn this study, the participating radiologists outperformed the commercial AI systems in routine clinical settings. Both exhibited distinct weakness profiles. Current AI systems are best suited as complementary tools rather than autonomous readers, provided FPs are managed effectively.
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.