Cited by 4Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Early clinical evaluation of AI triage of chest radiographs: time to diagnosis for suspected cancer and number of urgent CT referrals

Storey, Mathew, Packer, Jack, Grandal, Nora Sangvik, Rhodes, Anita, Moon, Jo, Togher, Daniel, Abubacker, Ziyad, Rickaby, Simon +2 more·2026·NEJM AI

Abstract

AbstractLung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United Kingdom. Early diagnosis and rapid access to treatment are associated with better outcomes but are dependent on prompt recognition of findings and the availability of a computed tomography (CT) scanner and reporting. In this clinical evaluation case study, we report the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to triage suspected cancer on chest x-rays to a "radiographer-led same-day CT pathway." We included 56,257 chest radiographs acquired before and after real-world AI deployment across a National Health Service trust comprising five hospitals in South West London over a 3-year study period between January 2022 and December 2024 (1 year preintervention and 2 years postintervention). The time from chest radiograph acquisition to CT report for cases with suspected lung cancer was reduced from 6.0 to 3.6 days, with the most significant reductions at centers with colocated CT and x-ray facilities and no significant increase in the proportion of CTs performed relative to chest x-rays. In detecting suspected cancer, the 14-feature AI triage model has an 82.5% sensitivity, a 90.5% specificity, a 14.6% positive predictive value, and a 99.6% negative predictive value for possible lung cancer on chest x-rays. Features such as focal airspace opacity and single pulmonary nodule returned the highest proportion of false-positive results, while pulmonary and mediastinal masses had a greater diagnostic yield. This work…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/aics2500539

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Storey, M., Packer, J., Grandal, N. S., Rhodes, A., Moon, J., Togher, D., Abubacker, Z., Rickaby, S., Dean, G., & Shelmerdine, S. C.
Affiliations
  • St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • South West London AI Working Group, London, UK
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital (GB)
Venue
NEJM AI
Published
2026-01-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
AIcs2500539-AIcs2500539
ISSN
2836-9386 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4417464596
Cited by
4
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NEJM AI (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
artificial intelligence, chest radiograph, triage, suspected cancer, time to diagnosis, lung cancer detection, clinical evaluation
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Female, Humans, London, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Referral and Consultation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Radiography, Thoracic, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Triage, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review