Multi-Site Real-World Performance of Commercial AI for Pulmonary and Incidental Pulmonary Embolism Detection
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular mortality, yet the real-world performance of FDA-cleared AI detection models remains incompletely characterized. We retrospectively evaluated two FDA-cleared AI algorithms from a single commercial platform (Aidoc Medical BriefCase), one for PE triage on dedicated CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA; n = 30,678) and one for incidental PE (iPE) detection on routine contrast-enhanced CTs (n = 37,191), across a 17-facility academic health system. Reference-standard labels were extracted from radiology reports using a validated LLM pipeline (97% accuracy, kappa = 0.94). The PE model achieved 86.8% sensitivity and 99.1% specificity, with sensitivity declining from 99.3% for saddle emboli to 72.9% for subsegmental PE, and from 89.7% for acute to 65.3% for non-acute PE. The iPE model achieved 73.5% sensitivity and 99.8% specificity. Both models demonstrated lower sensitivity than FDA-clearance benchmarks while exceeding cleared specificity, with diminishing performance for peripheral and non-acute emboli mirroring known human reader limitations and underscoring the need for standardized post-market surveillance of AI-enabled medical devices.
Results and benchmarks
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular mortality, yet the real-world performance of FDA-cleared AI detection models remains incompletely characterized.
Benchmark evidence is limited
LLM evidence refs: paper.title, summary.hasReliableImplementation, guidance.mode
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
LLM evidence refs: paper.title, summary.hasReliableImplementation, guidance.mode