ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence algorithm for detecting pneumoperitoneum on abdominal CT scans.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for detection, segmentation, and volumetric quantification of pneumoperitoneum on abdominal CT scans. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe developed and validated a deep learning-based model for automated pneumoperitoneum detection on CT. Multi-center CT imaging series from 2072 patients were collected and randomly divided into training and testing sets at an approximate 7:3 ratio. The external validation set included 214 emergency CT scans collected between April 2022 and December 2024. Diagnostic reports served as the reference standard. Primary outcome included the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Quantitative agreement between AI and reference volumes was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsIn the test set (n = 607), the model demonstrated excellent performance: sensitivity 91.4%, specificity 93.1%, and AUC 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.99). In the external validation cohort (n = 214), the model maintained robust performance with sensitivity 84.3% (95% CI: 76.2-90.5%), specificity 89.6% (95% CI: 82.3-94.6%), accuracy 86.9% (81.6-91.2%), PPV 89.2% (95% CI: 81.8-94.3%), and NPV 84.8% (95% CI: 77.1-90.7%). After excluding cases with minimal free gas (<1 mL), the model's sensitivity improved to 96%. AI-derived volumes showed strong agreement with the reference standard (ICC 0.996, 95% CI: 0.994-0.997).
conclusionThe AI model attained high diagnostic accuracy for pneumoperitoneum on abdominal CT scans, promising to expedite emergency workflows. KEY POINTS: Question Reliable AI detection of pneumoperitoneum, particularly for small-volume free air, on emergency CT remains an unmet need for rapid and accurate emergency triage. Findings The AI model shows high sensitivity and specificity for clinically relevant pneumoperitoneum volumes, although trace-volume detection on CT scans remains challenging. Critical relevance statement This study evaluates the diagnostic performance and volume-dependent variability of an AI model for pneumoperitoneum detection on CT scans, with the potential to aid emergency radiology workflow prioritization and decision support, though prospective studies are needed to confirm clinical impact.
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.