ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2026
Artificial intelligence-assisted reader evaluation in acute CT head interpretation (AI-REACT): a multireader multicase study.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06018545 (AI Assisted Reader Evaluation in Acute CT Head Interpretation), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
AI Assisted Reader Evaluation in Acute CT Head Interpretation
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Human-AI Collaboration in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess whether an artificial intelligence (AI) tool improves the accuracy, speed and confidence of general radiologists, emergency clinicians and radiographers in detecting critical non-contrast CT head (NCCTH) abnormalities and to evaluate its stand-alone performance and factors influencing diagnostic accuracy. Methods and analysis: A retrospective dataset of 150 NCCTH (52 normal and 98 with critical abnormalities) was reviewed by 30 readers (10 radiologists, 15 emergency clinicians and 5 radiographers) from four National Health Service trusts. Each interpreted scan is performed unaided and then with the qER EU 2.0 AI tool, separated by a 2-week washout period. Ground truth was established by two neuroradiologists. We measured the AI's stand-alone performance and its effect on reader accuracy, confidence and speed. Results: The qER algorithm showed strong diagnostic performance (area under the receiver operator curve 0.821-0.976). With AI, pooled reader sensitivity for critical abnormalities increased from 82.8% to 89.7% (+6.9%, p<0.001) and for intracranial haemorrhage from 84.6% to 91.6% (+7.0%, p<0.001), while specificity decreased from 84.5% to 78.9% (-5.5%, p=0.046). Reader confidence did not change significantly. Emergency department (ED) clinicians with AI achieved sensitivity similar to unaided radiologists. Conclusion: AI assistance increased sensitivity for detecting critical abnormalities on NCCTH but reduced specificity. AI-enabled ED clinicians to achieve diagnostic sensitivity comparable to radiologists, supporting its potential to enhance non-radiologist performance. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in clinical practice. Trial registration number: NCT06018545.
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.