ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of three commercial AI tools for detection and malignancy assessment of incidental lung nodules.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Objectives: Incidental pulmonary nodules are common on computed tomography (CT), and management typically relies on size and volume. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools show promise in nodule detection and risk assessment, but their clinical utility remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of AI-based software in detecting and predicting the malignancy of incidental pulmonary nodules. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included patients selected from a cohort of 1,138 individuals who underwent chest CT between 2015 and 2024 and met the inclusion criteria. Patients were classified into benign and malignant groups. Malignancy was determined by histopathology or by at least 2 years of follow-up. Nodule location, size, and type were assessed using by both using radiology reports and AI tools. Three commercial tools (AI-I, AI-II, and AI-III) were assessed for nodule detection and malignancy risk prediction. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and diagnostic performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: Chest CT scans of 374 patients (mean age 66 ± 9 yr.; range 37-88 yr.; 231 males) with at least one solid or part-solid nodule were evaluated. AI-I and AI-II demonstrated excellent agreement with radiology reports for nodule localization ( Conclusion: AI-based tools demonstrated high accuracy for incidental pulmonary detection; however, their performance in malignancy risk stratification differed substantially.
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.