ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Radiologist and AI performance in detecting mucus plugs on chest CT.
Article in European radiology, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare automated mucus plug detection with radiologist evaluation, assess AI-assisted detection, and examine associations of algorithm-derived airway obstruction burden with COPD severity. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 278 COPDGene participants selected across never-smokers, smokers with preserved ratio-impaired spirometry, and GOLD stages 0-4. An AI tool generated candidate plugs. Two thoracic radiologists independently identified plugs in unaided and AI-assisted sessions. A third thoracic radiologist adjudicated all candidates as the reference. Patient- and plug-level performance, observer agreement, false-positive detection, and rank-transformed associations with pulmonary function, CT parameters, and clinical severity were evaluated.
resultsReference mucus plugs were present in 114/278 participants (41%). Patient-level AI sensitivity was lower than R1 (68.4% vs 86.8%; p < 0.001) but not different from R2 (68.4% vs 79.8%; p = 0.141), whereas specificity was similar across approaches (95.7% vs 98.8%-100.0%). Plug-level AI sensitivity was lower than both readers (34.8% vs 58.9% for R1 and 55.6% for R2; both p < 0.001). AI assistance improved readers' plug-level sensitivity (63.6-68.6%; p ≤ 0.004). AI-reader agreement was good (κ, 0.62-0.69), and inter-reader agreement improved with AI (κ, 0.70 vs 0.78; p < 0.001). These non-reference-positive AI detections (0.396/scan) were mostly marked bronchial wall thickening or partially occlusive mucus. They were independently associated with worse airflow limitation, CT emphysema, Pi10, and clinical severity after accounting for true-positive burden, improving model fit (ΔR², 0.03-0.05).
conclusionAI was less sensitive than radiologists but had similar specificity for mucus plug detection. AI assistance improved reader sensitivity and agreement. Additional algorithm-detected airway abnormalities remained associated with airway disease severity. KEY POINTS: QuestionAutomated mucus plug detection on chest CT may enable standardized COPD assessment, but independent validation against radiologist assessments remains limited. FindingsArtificial intelligence showed lower sensitivity than radiologists but similar patient-level specificity on chest CT, and assistance improved sensitivity and inter-reader agreement. Clinical relevanceAutomated mucus plug analysis may support standardized airway obstruction burden assessment in COPD research and clinical trials while retaining radiologist oversight.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42814120What 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.