Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41278429›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2025

Diagnostic accuracy of AI in chest radiography for pneumonia and lung cancer: A meta-analysis.

Mohammed Elmujtba Adam Essa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

1 author.

Mohammed Elmujtba Adam EssaDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Medical and Cancer Research Institute, Sudan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: Chest radiography (CXR) is the most common imaging test worldwide for evaluating pulmonary disease, yet its sensitivity for pneumonia and lung cancer is limited. Artificial intelligence (AI) based image analysis has shown promise to aid radiographic diagnosis. A meta-analysis was performed for AI algorithms evaluation for detecting pneumonia or lung nodules on CXR, and AI performance was compared to human readers. Materials and Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and IEEE Xplore (Jan 2017-July 2025) for diagnostic accuracy studies of AI on CXR. Eligible studies included any prospective or retrospective design reporting sensitivity and specificity for AI-based pneumonia or lung nodule detection, with an independent reference standard. Data were extracted using a standardized form and quality was assessed with QUADAS2. Results: Fifteen studies (≈12,000 CXRs) met inclusion criteria; individual AI algorithms achieved sensitivities of ∼70-97 % and specificities of ∼85-95 %. Meta-analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 88 % and specificity of 90 % for AI pneumonia detection. For lung nodules, pooled AI sensitivity was ≈ 72 % and specificity ≈ 95 %. One representative deep-learning model for detecting nodules. AI tended to miss very small or central nodules but detected ∼90 % of larger nodules. Crucially, using AI as a second reader improved radiologist performance, increasing sensitivity by approximately 9-10 %age points. Conclusion: AI algorithms demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia on CXR and can markedly increase the detection of occult lung nodules when used as a second reader. However, performance varies by lesion characteristics. Overall, AI has strong potential to enhance clinical chest radiograph interpretation.

Indexed as

Chest radiographyDeep learningDiagnostic accuracyLung cancerPneumonia

Identifiers

PMID41278429
PMCPMC12629914

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.