ArticleMedicine2026
Evaluation of artificial intelligence for pulmonary embolism detection on CTPA: A single-center retrospective study comparing AI, radiologists, and AI-assisted interpretation.
Article in Medicine, 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
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition commonly diagnosed with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied for PE detection, its performance relative to physician-only and AI-assisted interpretation remains incompletely characterized. The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and reading time across 3 CTPA interpretation strategies: AI alone, physician-only reading, and AI-assisted physician reading. We retrospectively analyzed CTPA images from 50 patients diagnosed with PE at a single center and randomly divided them into 2 groups: one group (n = 25) was reviewed by radiologists from different levels, and the other group (n = 25) was reviewed by radiologists with AI assistance. Then, AI independently reviewed all images. The reference standard was established by consensus among 3 senior radiologists. Diagnostic performance and reading time were compared across the 3 reading paradigms. AI alone achieved an overall sensitivity of 91.24% and precision of 96.12%; sensitivity declined from 100% in grade 1 to 2 vessels to 86.32% in grade ≥6 vessels. Compared with physician-only reading, AI-assisted reading increased sensitivity and precision for junior radiologists (64.28%-75.51% and 81.82%-89.16%, respectively) and intermediate radiologists (80.67%-92.34% and 88.47%-97.31%, respectively). AI assistance also reduced mean reading time at both experience levels (both P < .05). In this small, single-center retrospective exploratory study, AI-assisted CTPA interpretation was associated with higher lesion-level sensitivity and precision and shorter reading times than physician-only interpretation. Larger prospective multicenter studies are required to validate these findings and assess their generalizability.
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.