Why the study?
The diagnostic performance of AI relative to physician-only and AI-assisted interpretation for PE detection on CTPA remains incompletely characterized.
Does AI-assisted interpretation improve diagnostic performance and reduce reading time for pulmonary embolism detection on CTPA compared to physician-only reading?
Observational (n=50)
Double-blind
Random number table method
No
Does AI-assisted interpretation improve diagnostic performance and reduce reading time for pulmonary embolism detection on CTPA compared to physician-only reading?
AI assistance significantly improves the diagnostic sensitivity, precision, and reading efficiency of radiologists detecting pulmonary embolism on CTPA.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May improve sensitivity and efficiency for intermediate radiologists detecting pulmonary embolism; hypothesis-generating given the small retrospective design.
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition commonly diagnosed with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been applied for PE detection, its performance relative to physician-only and AI-assisted interpretation remains incompletely characterized. The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and reading time across 3 CTPA interpretation strategies: AI alone, physician-only reading, and AI-assisted physician reading. We retrospectively analyzed CTPA images from 50 patients diagnosed with PE at a single center and randomly divided them into 2 groups: one group (n = 25) was reviewed by radiologists from different levels, and the other group (n = 25) was reviewed by radiologists with AI assistance. Then, AI independently reviewed all images. The reference standard was established by consensus among 3 senior radiologists. Diagnostic performance and reading time were compared across the 3 reading paradigms. AI alone achieved an overall sensitivity of 91.24% and precision of 96.12%; sensitivity declined from 100% in grade 1 to 2 vessels to 86.32% in grade ≥6 vessels. Compared with physician-only reading, AI-assisted reading increased sensitivity and precision for junior radiologists (64.28%–75.51% and 81.82%–89.16%, respectively) and intermediate radiologists (80.67%–92.34% and 88.47%–97.31%, respectively). AI assistance also reduced mean reading time at both experience levels (both P < .05). In this small, single-center retrospective exploratory study, AI-assisted CTPA interpretation was associated with higher lesion-level sensitivity and precision and shorter reading times than physician-only interpretation. Larger prospective multicenter studies are required to validate these findings and assess their generalizability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Pulmonary embolism (n=50). AI-assisted CTPA interpretation vs. Physician-only CTPA interpretation was evaluated on Mean reading time for intermediate radiologists (seconds) (p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: