SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Comparative accuracy of artificial intelligence versus manual interpretation in detecting pulmonary hypertension across chest imaging modalities: a diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) has an incidence of approximately 6 cases per million adults, with a global prevalence ranging from 49 to 55 cases per million adults. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have demonstrated promising improvements in the diagnostic accuracy of imaging for PH, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.94, compared to seasoned professionals. Research objective: To systematically synthesize available evidence on the comparative accuracy of AI versus manual interpretation in detecting PH across various chest imaging modalities, i.e., chest X-ray, echocardiography, CT scan and cardiac MRI. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across five databases-PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library-from inception through March 2025. Statistical analysis was performed using R (version 2024.12.1 + 563) with 2 × 2 contingency data. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model (reitsma() from the mada package), while the AUC were meta-analyzed using logit-transformed values via the metagen() function from the meta package. Results: This meta-analysis of 12 studies, encompassing 7,459 patients, demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy of PH with AI integration, evidenced by a logit mean difference in AUC of 0.43 (95% CI: 0.23-0.64; Conclusion: AI-integrated imaging significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy for pulmonary hypertension, with higher sensitivity (0.83) and specificity (0.91) compared to manual interpretation across chest imaging modalities. However, further high-quality trials with externally validated cohorts may be needed to confirm these findings and reduce variability among AI models across diverse clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.