Accuracy of an artificial intelligence-enabled diagnostic assistance device in recognizing normal chest radiographs: a service evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) enabled devices may be able to optimize radiologists' productivity by identifying normal and abnormal chest X-rays (CXRs) for triaging. In this service evaluation, we investigated the accuracy of one such AI device (qXR). Methods: A randomly sampled subset of general practice and outpatient-referred frontal CXRs from a National Health Service Trust was collected retrospectively from examinations conducted during November 2022 to January 2023. Ground truth was established by consensus between 2 radiologists. The main objective was to estimate negative predictive value (NPV) of AI. Results: A total of 522 CXRs (458 [87.74%] normal CXRs) from 522 patients (median age, 64 years [IQR, 49-77]; 305 [58.43%] female) were analysed. AI predicted 348 CXRs as normal, of which 346 were truly normal (NPV: 99.43% [95% CI, 97.94-99.93]). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and area under the ROC curve of AI were found to be 96.88% (95% CI, 89.16-99.62), 75.55% (95% CI, 71.34-79.42), 35.63% (95% CI, 28.53-43.23), and 91.92% (95% CI, 89.38-94.45), respectively. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to estimate NPV by varying assumptions of the prevalence of normal CXRs. The NPV ranged from 88.96% to 99.54% as prevalence increased. Conclusions: The AI device recognized normal CXRs with high NPV and has the potential to increase radiologists' productivity. Advances in knowledge: There is a need for more evidence on the utility of AI-enabled devices in identifying normal CXRs. This work adds to such limited evidence and enables researchers to plan studies to further evaluate the impact of such devices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".