ArticleCHEST pulmonary2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Automated Pneumothorax Detection Via Novice-Acquired Ultrasound After Chest Tube Removal: Comparison With Expert Interpretation and Chest Radiography.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pneumothorax (PTX) is a frequent complication after chest tube removal, and timely detection is important to inform monitoring and potential intervention. Chest radiograph (CXR) remains the standard modality after chest-tube-removal PTX detection, despite its limited sensitivity and frequent delays in acquisition. Lung ultrasound (LUS) has superior accuracy and portability but is highly operator dependent, limiting its usability. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether artificial intelligence-assisted LUS (AI-LUS) enables novice users to accurately detect PTX after chest tube removal, compared with expert interpretation and CXR. Research Question: Does AI-LUS improve the ability of novice users to detect findings associated with PTX after chest tube removal compared with expert interpretation and CXR? Study Design and Methods: We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study in adult patients undergoing chest tube removal at a tertiary academic hospital. LUS clips were acquired by novice operators using a handheld ultrasound device. A previously trained artificial intelligence model was then calibrated and used to detect the absence or presence of lung sliding. The reference standard was expert consensus LUS interpretation, with CXR serving as a secondary reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated at 2 time points: immediately after removal and after routine CXR. Results: A total of 76 patients were enrolled, yielding 848 LUS clips across 2 time points. Data from the first 12 patients were used to calibrate the model, with the remaining 64 forming the validation cohort. Compared with expert LUS interpretation, AI-LUS demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.775, a specificity of 0.831, and a negative predictive value of 0.96 for identifying absent lung sliding. When compared with CXR, AI-LUS achieved a sensitivity of 1.0 immediately after removal and 0.923 after CXR for PTX detection. Interpretation: Our results show that novice-performed AI-LUS demonstrated moderate diagnostic accuracy for detecting absent lung sliding after chest tube removal. Its very high sensitivity and excellent negative predictive value for identifying cases with absent lung sliding associated with PTX relative to CXR highlights a potential role for AI-LUS as a rapid triage tool that may reduce reliance on routine CXR, while acknowledging that PTX inference requires clinical correlation and additional ultrasound findings.
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.