ArticlePloS one2026
Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is the formation of thrombi in the deep venous system, most often in the lower extremities. Although usually not life-threatening, DVT requires timely diagnosis to prevent complications such as pulmonary embolism and post-thrombotic syndrome. The growing demand for image interpretation has generated interest in applying artificial intelligence (AI) to automated DVT detection. This scoping review analyzes the performance of artificial intelligence in diagnosing DVT using computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound (US). We conducted a search across seven databases from inception to May 2025 using terms related to deep vein thrombosis, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Eligible studies were limited to those evaluating DVT diagnosis using CT, MRI, or ultrasound. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies, and quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Eleven studies published between 2021 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria. Some of the AI algorithms included RetinaNet, Deep R-Belief Neural Networks, and Sooty Tern Optimization. US-based models were the most studied algorithms, with sensitivities and specificities ranging from 68 to 100% and 70-100%, respectively. The MRI-based model achieved sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies of 95% to 97%. One CT-based model demonstrated a sensitivity of 83%. Studies evaluated across multiple imaging datasets showed high sensitivities, specificities, and precision of 96% or higher. Future research should prioritize multicenter validation and integration of clinical factors. In addition, explainable frameworks capable of integrating multiple imaging datasets must be developed with attention to workflow efficiency and cost-effectiveness to support clinical translation. The results indicate that AI is best situated as a supplementary tool rather than a replacement for expert interpretation in DVT diagnosis.
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.