ArticleERJ open research2026
Systematic review of artificial intelligence and digital-automated tools for screening, diagnosis and characterisation of primary ciliary dyskinesia.
Article in ERJ open research, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a rare, multigenic disorder of impaired mucociliary clearance leading to a spectrum of disease including chronic respiratory infection and bronchiectasis. PCD is phenotypically variable causing diagnostic challenges. PCD is underdiagnosed, and when it is made, diagnosis is often delayed. We describe evidence for use of digital-automated applications and/or artificial intelligence (AI) to improve PCD screening, diagnosis and characterisation. Methods: A systematic literature search (2004-2025) was conducted across PubMed, Embase and BioRxiv/MedRxiv (PROSPERO:CRD42024605689) by members of the ERS BEAT-PCD Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC). Screening and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers and findings summarised qualitatively. In collaboration with the digital health ERS CONNECT CRC network, a narrative discussion focused on steps to real-world implementation. Results: Of 770 screened abstracts, 73 full-texts were assessed and 28 PCD-relevant studies with automated digital and/or AI-driven tools were included in the qualitative synthesis. Tools for enhanced ciliary function, ciliary ultrastructure and ciliary protein immunofluorescence analysis were presented in 17 studies. 11 papers presented tools to screen e-health records for PCD, stratify patients by genotype and phenotype, or characterise computed tomography parameters. Conclusions: Tools are available that could improve PCD diagnostic accuracy and reduce time-to-diagnosis. Studies were often single-centre, retrospective and of small sample size. The development of automated-digital tools or AI-driven tools requires representative patient datasets, human expert judgement to interpret and continual safety auditing. External validation is paramount before adaptation of healthcare systems, with adherence to EU AI Act framework to ensure accountability and safeguard against misuse. Simplified tools and philanthropic partnerships could facilitate implementation of new systems in resource limited settings.
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.