ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Lung nodule detection and potential impact on guideline-based management: a retrospective post-market evaluation of three commercial software systems.
Article in European 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate three commercial AI software tools for pulmonary nodule detection and segmentation and to assess their impact on guideline-based management recommendations. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 740 CT and PET-CT studies from clinical routine were analyzed using three software tools (S1, S2, S3). We compared the total number of detected nodules and "actionable" nodules (per British Thoracic Society (BTS) definition). We further evaluated how measurement variations between tools affected hypothetical management according to Fleischner Society and BTS guidelines for incidental nodules.
resultsThe tools differed significantly in the total number of detections (S1: 1336; S2: 1060; S3: 1536; p < 0.001) and wrong findings (S1: 965; S2: 720; S3: 1169; p < 0.001). However, the detection of actionable nodules was comparable across all tools (S1: 375; S2: 341; S3: 373; p = 0.73). While no statistically significant differences were found in mean diameter or volume measurements, small absolute variations led to significant differences in management. Specifically, S2 triggered significantly more 1-year follow-up recommendations than S3 under BTS guidelines (p < 0.001). No significant management differences were observed when applying Fleischner Society guidelines.
conclusionWhile the three included AI tools show comparable performance in detecting actionable nodules, minor measurement variations significantly impact downstream management when using guidelines with narrow thresholds, such as the BTS criteria. Fleischner Society guidelines appear more robust to these inter-software variations. KEY POINTS: Question How do commercial software tools for pulmonary nodule detection perform in real-world settings and impact hypothetical management under BTS and Fleischner guidelines? Findings Detection of actionable nodules was comparable across all tools, but small absolute measurement variations triggered significantly more 1-year follow-up recommendations under BTS guidelines. Clinical relevance AI software can cause inconsistent BTS-based management due to narrow thresholds, while Fleischner criteria appear more stable. Frequent detection of benign lesions potentially poses a risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment in standalone AI-based reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42343062What 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.