SynthesisFrontiers in radiology2026
Artificial intelligence for lung ultrasound interpretation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Computer vision-based support system for B-line detection in lung ultrasound.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context and objectives: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a safe low-cost tool that enables diagnosis, monitoring and guidance for interventional procedures at the patient's bedside. However, its expansion is hindered by a lack of training programs and the inherent difficulty of interpreting ultrasound images. In this context, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a supportive tool for LUS interpretation, ensuring diagnostic efficacy and mitigating the shortage of experts. This systematic review aims to summarize and analyze recent advances in AI-based tools to support LUS interpretation. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed databases to identify peer-reviewed original journal articles published between 2015 and November 2025 that employed AI for the identification and localization of lung artifacts, anatomical structures, and pathological findings. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST + AI. Results: Twenty-four studies were included, identifying three main strategies: segmentation (10 studies), object detection (4 studies), and the generation of visual explanations through saliency maps (10 studies). All employed CNN-based architectures. The evaluation metrics used were heterogeneous. The PROBAST + AI assessment showed relevant risk-of-bias concerns, mainly concentrated in the participants and analysis domains. Conclusions: The development of AI systems to support LUS interpretation shows high potential; however, current studies exhibit significant heterogeneity in their objectives, methodologies, and evaluation metrics. It is necessary to move towards solutions designed for specific clinical environments and to adopt standardized protocols and evaluations that facilitate their implementation in clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261322517, PROSPERO CRD420261322517.
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.