ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2026
Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning-assisted low-dose CT screening for lung cancer detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 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
backgroundDeep learning (DL)-assisted low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) may improve lung cancer screening, but the available evidence is heterogeneous and patient-level diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from January 2010 to December 2025 for studies evaluating DL-assisted LDCT in lung cancer screening or screening-relevant populations. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2. AI-specific reporting completeness was assessed descriptively using items adapted from CLAIM and STARD-AI. Studies with complete or reconstructible patient-level 2 × 2 data at a defined threshold were pooled using bivariate random-effects and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Studies without sufficient threshold-specific data were synthesised narratively.
resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies, comprising 2,220 participants, 232 lung cancer cases, and 1,988 non-cases, provided usable threshold-specific 2 × 2 data and were included in the meta-analysis. Six studies were synthesised narratively because patient-level TP, FP, FN, and TN values were unavailable or not reconstructible. Pooled sensitivity was 85.4% (95% CI, 79.1-90.0), and pooled specificity was 83.5% (95% CI, 73.5-90.2). The positive likelihood ratio was 5.17, the negative likelihood ratio was 0.18, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 29.53. No study was at low risk of bias across all QUADAS-2 domains, and AI-specific reporting gaps were common. Subgroup, meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were not feasible because only five studies were quantitatively eligible. No statistical evidence of small-study effects was detected, although this assessment was inconclusive because only five studies were pooled.
conclusionsDL-assisted LDCT shows promising but preliminary diagnostic accuracy for lung cancer screening. However, the small, heterogeneous, and methodologically limited evidence base does not support autonomous clinical use. DL is currently best considered a decision-support tool within radiologist-led screening pathways, pending prospective external validation and workflow-based evaluation.
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.