Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42763768›Full record

ReviewCurrent health sciences journal

The Role and Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence in Pulmonary Function Tests: A Systematic Review.

Thomas Orpwood, Irina-Lavinia Soica

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current health sciences journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Thomas OrpwoodEast Surrey Hospital, Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Redhill, UK.
Irina-Lavinia SoicaUniversity College London Faculty of Medical Sciences, 74 Huntley St, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has highlighted its potential as a supportive tool in pulmonary function test (PFT) interpretation given the inherent biological variation, inter-rater variability, lack of confidence in result interpretation and restricted access within resource-constrained settings. This study aims to systematically review the published literature on the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based interpretation of PFTs and evaluate its implications for current and future clinical practice in healthcare. After screening, forty-seven publications met the inclusion criteria and were analysed to create a narrative summary. Four main over-arching themes were identified from the available literature. AI appears to consistently outperform non-specialists in diagnostic accuracy of PFTs and showed a synergistic effect when used as an adjunct in both specialist and non-specialist settings. Using AI software also had greater diagnostic accuracy than clinicians when presented with suboptimal or limited clinical information and investigations. It was also observed that the implementation of AI can address the issue of inter-rater variability by giving more consultant interpretations. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis saw the greatest accuracy with other conditions such as obstructive sleep apnoea showing limited evidence for the introduction of AI as a diagnostic tool. The evidence suggests that AI has the potential to play a significant role in the future of healthcare but should be used as an adjunctive tool as opposed to an independent diagnostic decision maker. One such way it could be utilised is as a triage/screening tool to help bridge the gap between primary and secondary care.

Indexed as

Artificial Intelligencediagnostic accuracy.machine learningpulmonary function tests

Identifiers

PMID42763768
PMCPMC13589599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.