ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Diagnostic accuracy of an artificial intelligence-based osteoporosis screening system on portable chest radiographs.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) models applied to conventional chest radiographs (CXRs) have shown potential for osteoporosis screening in hospital settings. However, their performance when applied to portable CXR obtained in community programs remains uncertain. This study evaluated a commercially available AI model (PROS Methods: Older adults participating in a Korean National Tuberculosis Association mobile screening program who consented to osteoporosis evaluation were prospectively enrolled. Portable CXR images were analyzed by the AI model to generate a continuous osteoporosis risk score (0-1). Participants subsequently underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) within approximately one week. Osteoporosis was defined as a T-score ≤-2.5 at the lumbar spine, femoral neck, or total hip. Diagnostic performance was assessed across thresholds from 0.0 to 1.0 to determine an optimal threshold. Results: Fifty-two participants with paired portable CXR and DXA data were analyzed. Osteoporosis was present in 20 participants (38.5%). A threshold of 0.2 provided the most favorable screening performance in this cohort, yielding an accuracy of 0.69, sensitivity of 0.90, specificity of 0.57, positive predictive value of 0.56, negative predictive value of 0.90, and an F1-score of 0.69. The area under the curve was 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-0.97). Most false-positive cases occurred in osteopenic individuals, whereas false negatives were limited to borderline osteoporosis cases. Conclusions: In this feasibility-based pilot study, the AI model demonstrated promising discrimination when applied to portable CXR in community-based osteoporosis screening. Its high sensitivity at the selected threshold suggests potential utility as a referral-oriented screening tool, but the findings require confirmation in larger, more balanced, externally validated cohorts.
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.