• 学术搜索
  • 科研智能体
    • Research Labs
    • AI 阅读
    • AI 文库
    • 深度研究
    • 学者亮点
  • 学术资源
    • AI2000
    • 期刊/会议
    • 学者库
    • 学术API
      MCP&Skill
    • 溯源树
    • 数据集
  • 知识沉淀
    • 学术空间
订阅小程序
旧版功能
aminer vip
开通会员低至0.73元/天
一次搞定AI科研
立即登录
  • English
  • 联系方式
    S

    Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

    EST. 2001
    3,439论文总数
    7.5万引用总数

    论文量&引用量时间轴

    机构学者

    论文(3439)

    年份
    起
    –
    止
    排序
    1The Dementias Platform UK PET/MR Harmonisation and Test-Retest Study: Assessment of PET Repeatability and Reproducibility Across the National Network
    Pawel J. Markiewicz,Gerard Thompson, Joanna M. Wardlaw,Catriona Wimberley,Craig Ritchie,John-Paul Taylor,David Brooks, Ross Maxwell,Michael Firbank,Nigel Hoggard,Li Su,Jim Wild,

    Positron emission tomography combined with magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MR) has not yet achieved the level of adoption of PET/CT. This study aimed to harmonise PET imaging protocols across a national PET/MR network and to quantitatively assess whether PET/MR can achieve reliability comparable to PET/CT. While previous PET test-retest studies have demonstrated good repeatability, they have typically been limited to small cohorts or restricted site configurations. We conducted a multi-site harmonisation and rigorous test-retest study across the network of eight PET/MR scanners. Thirty-seven healthy older participants (65-90 years) underwent harmonised one-hour amyloid PET/MR scans using either [ ^18 F]flutemetamol or [ ^18 F]florbetaben on two occasions. Retest scans were performed under conditions of same-site repeatability or multi-site reproducibility. Harmonised acquisition and reconstruction protocols were applied, and amyloid burden was quantified on the Centiloid (CL) scale. CL values across 74 scans showed excellent test-retest agreement (ICC = 0.968), improving to 0.987 after exclusion of one attenuation correction related outlier. Mean test-retest variability was 2.58

    2026European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging(2026)引用:28
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    2Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Capsule Endoscopy Versus Conventional Capsule Endoscopy for Detection of Small Bowel Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
    Arkadeep Dhali, Vincent Kipkorir, Rick Maity, Bahadar S Srichawla, Jyotirmoy Biswas,Roger B Rathna,Hareesha Rishab Bharadwaj,Ibsen Ongidi, Talha Chaudhry, Gisore Morara, Maryann Waithaka, Clinton Rugut,

    BACKGROUND:Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a valuable tool used in the diagnosis of small intestinal lesions. The study aims to systematically review the literature and provide a meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and negative and positive predictive values of AI-assisted CE in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions in comparison to CE. METHODS:Literature searches were performed through PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE to identify studies eligible for inclusion. All publications up to 24 November 2024 were included. Original articles (including observational studies and randomized control trials), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and case series reporting outcomes on AI-assisted CE in the diagnosis of small bowel lesions were included. The extracted data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was performed for the appropriate variables, considering the clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the included studies. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis v4.0 (Biostat Inc.) was used for the analysis of the data. RESULTS:A total of 14 studies were included in the present study. The mean age of participants across the studies was 54.3 years (SD 17.7), with 55.4% men and 44.6% women. The pooled accuracy for conventional CE was 0.966 (95% CI: 0.925-0.988), whereas for AI-assisted CE, it was 0.9185 (95% CI: 0.9138-0.9233). Conventional CE exhibited a pooled sensitivity of 0.860 (95% CI: 0.786-0.934) compared with AI-assisted CE at 0.9239 (95% CI: 0.8648-0.9870). The positive predictive value for conventional CE was 0.982 (95% CI: 0.976-0.987), whereas AI-assisted CE had a PPV of 0.8928 (95% CI: 0.7554-0.999). The pooled specificity for conventional CE was 0.998 (95% CI: 0.996-0.999) compared with 0.5367 (95% CI: 0.5244-0.5492) for AI-assisted CE. Negative predictive values were higher in AI-assisted CE at 0.9425 (95% CI: 0.9389-0.9462) versus 0.760 (95% CI: 0.577-0.943) for conventional CE. CONCLUSION:AI-assisted CE displays superior diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and positive predictive values albeit the lower pooled specificity in comparison with conventional CE. Its use would ensure accurate detection of small bowel lesions and further enhance their management.

    2026Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology(2026)引用:7
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    3False Positive Bias in AI-powered Speech-Based Cognitive Screening for Multilingual English Speakers in the UK
    Madhurananda Pahar, Caitlin Illingworth, Dorota Braun,Bahman Mirheidari,Lise Sproson,Daniel Blackburn,Heidi Christensen

    Conversational speech reveals early signs of cognitive decline, including dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). AI models show promise for speech-based screening, yet most research focuses on monolingual groups. In the UK, dementia is projected to rise fastest among Black and Asian communities, where multilingualism is common, making equity assessment critical. We recruited 1,395 participants (monolingual English speakers and multilingual speakers from Sheffield/Bradford) and collected over 263 hours of speech via the CognoMemory agent. Multilingual participants spoke English alongside Somali, Chinese, or South Asian languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Mirpuri, Arabic). We evaluated ASR (Whisper, Wav2Vec 2.0, NeMo) and downstream AI models for cognitive classification and MMSE regression. ASR accuracy showed no significant differences across groups. However, downstream models exhibited systematic disparities: multilingual speakers were more often misclassified as impaired, especially in memory, fluency, and reading tasks. False-positive rates were substantially higher for multilingual (28 to 37

    2026CoRR(2026)引用:3
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    4The 2026 British Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Adult Coeliac Disease.
    Hugo A Penny,Mohamed G Shiha,Suneil A Raju, Nicoletta Nandi,Nick Trott, Cristian Costas-Batlle, Joy Whelan,Annalisa Schiepatti, Charles Andrews, Geraint Preest, Catherine Currie, Nicky Mountford,

    This document outlines an updated guideline from the British Society of Gastroenterology, detailing the standards for diagnosing and managing adult coeliac disease (CD). A multidisciplinary panel from across the UK, Sweden, Italy and Australia contributed to the development of these guidelines. This update is prompted by recent advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of adult CD. The primary goal is to emphasise evidence-based practices to enhance the management of adult CD, with the aim of improving patient care.

    2026Gut(2026)引用:2
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    5Evaluation and Management of Thyroid Nodules: A Joint Consensus Statement from the British Thyroid Association (BTA), British Association of Endocrine and Thyroid Surgeons (BAETS) and Collaborating Bodies
    Ram Moorthy,Saba P Balasubramanian, Kate Farnell, Mairead Kelly,Gitta Madani, Mufaddal Moonim,Carla Moran, Julia Priestley,Michael Stechman, Emma Watts,Kristien Boelaert
    2026Clinical endocrinology(2026)引用:2
    引用
    AI阅读
    加入学术空间
    立即登录,查看全部 3439 篇论文

    合作机构(100)

    谢菲尔德大学合作论文 862
    利兹教学医院 NHS 信托合作论文 150
    谢菲尔德哈勒姆大学合作论文 116
    曼彻斯特大学合作论文 108
    牛津大学合作论文 108
    帝国理工学院合作论文 101
    皇家哈勒姆郡医院合作论文 97
    曼彻斯特大学合作论文 96
    诺丁汉大学合作论文 95
    University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust合作论文 84

    机构统计