This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Abstract Purpose Artificial intelligence (AI) could reduce lung cancer screening computer tomography (CT)-reading workload if used as a first-reader, ruling-out negative CT-scans at baseline. Evidence is lacking to support AI performance when compared to gold-standard lung cancer outcomes. This study validated the performance of a commercially available AI software in the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial dataset, with comparison to human reads and histological lung cancer outcomes, and estimated CT-reading workload reduction. Methods 1252 UKLS-baseline-CT-scans were evaluated independently by AI and human readers. AI performance was evaluated on two-levels. Firstly, AI classification and individual reads were compared to a EU reference standard (based on NELSON2.0-European Position Statement) determined by a European expert panel blinded from individual results. A positive misclassification was defined as a nodule positive read ≥ 100mm³ and no/<100mm³ nodules in the expert read; A negative misclassification was defined as a nodule negative read, whereas an indeterminate or positive finding in the expert read. Secondly, AI nodule classification was compared to gold-standard histological lung cancer outcomes. CT-reading workload reduction was calculated from AI negative CT-scans when AI was used as first-reader. Results Expert panel reference standard reported 815 (65 %) negative and 437 (35 %) indeterminate/positive CT-scans in the dataset of 1252 UKLS-participants. Compared to the reference standard, AI resulted in less misclassification than human reads, NPV 92·0 %(90·2 %-95·3 %). On comparison to gold-standard, AI detected all 31 baseline-round lung cancers, but classified one as negative due to the 100mm³ threshold, NPV 99·8 %(99·0 %-99·9 %). Estimated maximum CT-reading workload reduction was 79 %. Conclusion Implementing AI as first-reader to rule-out negative CT-scans, shows considerable potential to reduce CT-reading workload and does not lead to missed lung cancers.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lancaster et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: