ArticleJournal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Radiological assessment of pulmonary vascularity in congenital heart disease: standardized clinician assessment versus deep learning-based prediction.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of pulmonary vascularity on chest radiographs (CXRs) in congenital heart disease (CHD) is limited by subjectivity, and existing criteria lack sufficient validation. Artificial intelligence-based deep learning model (DLM) analysis may improve accuracy. We developed and validated structured criteria and a DLM to evaluate pulmonary vascularity and compared it with conventional clinical interpretation.
methodsA total of 400 deidentified CXRs from CHD patients with Fick-derived pulmonary-to-systemic flow ratio (Qp:Qs) were evaluated by three experts and three trainees in pediatric cardiology and radiology using nine prespecified criteria. A separate set of 1,088 CXRs was used to train the DLM. The clinician-interpreted CXRs were subsequently assessed by the DLM to predict the Qp:Qs.
resultsIntraclass correlation between Fick- and DLM-derived Qp:Qs was 0.782 (P < 0.001), with a root mean squared error of 0.395 (P < 0.001). The DLM showed a strong agreement with Fick-derived classification of pulmonary vascularity (κ = 0.770, P < 0.001; predicting Qp:Qs > 1.5: 90% specificity, 98% sensitivity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 98%; predicting Qp:Qs < 0.9: 92% specificity, 95% sensitivity, AUROC 98%). For interpreting pulmonary vascularity as increased or decreased, clinician concordance was 75% and 66%, respectively, whereas DLM concordance was 88% and 98%, respectively (P = 0.03). Among the structured criteria, the number of end-on vessels demonstrated strong interobserver agreement, whereas agreement for individual peripheral vessels, the size of end-on vessels, branch pulmonary arteries with their respective bronchi, and opacity of lung fields was modest.
conclusionDeep learning-based analysis of CXRs enables accurate evaluation of pulmonary vascularity and outperforms structured assessment by clinicians.
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.