ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Risk-Stratified Use of Concurrent Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) in Chest CT: Gains in Overall Sensitivity with Loss for CAD-Negative Nodules.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study quantifies how concurrent computer-aided detection/diagnosis (CAD) alters radiologists' performance in chest CT, emphasizing CAD-negative nodules and the trade-off between overall sensitivity and detection of unmarked lesions. We enrolled 150 consecutive patients undergoing thin-section chest CT. A reference standard of 334 nodules (93% < 10 mm) was established by consensus. Six readers (3 novice, 3 expert) interpreted each scan without CAD and, after a 4-week washout, reinterpreted them with CAD overlays visible from the outset (concurrent reading, outside the recommended workflow). We analyzed sensitivity, case-based specificity, and reading time. Overall sensitivity improved from 47 to 59% (p < 0.01) and mean reading time decreased by 42.8 s (p < 0.01). Conversely, sensitivity for the 75 CAD-negative nodules declined significantly (novices, - 20 percentage points; experts, - 16 points; both p < 0.01). Mixed-effects logistic regression confirmed lower odds of detecting CAD-negative nodules with concurrent CAD (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.47). Gains were driven by 3-9 mm nodules, while < 3 mm lesions showed no benefit. Reader case-based specificity rose from 75 to 82% with CAD assistance. Concurrent CAD improved overall sensitivity and interpretation speed but significantly reduced sensitivity for CAD-negative nodules, consistent with reduced search vigilance for unprompted regions. Because most CAD-negative nodules were ≤ 6 mm, risk-stratified CAD workflows should be validated prospectively before broad clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42243598What 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.