Artificial intelligence for lung ultrasound interpretation: a systematic review.
Authors
Affiliations (6)
Affiliations (6)
- NeumoVigo I+i Research Group, Galicia Sur Health Research Institute (IIS Galicia Sur), SERGAS-UVIGO, Vigo, Spain.
- Pulmonary Department, Hospital Álvaro Cunqueiro, Vigo, Spain.
- Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red, CIBERES ISCIII, Madrid, Spain.
- Department of Functional Biology and Health Sciences, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
- Diagnostic Imaging Department, Hospital Ribera Povisa, Vigo, Spain.
- Department of Design in Engineering, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Abstract
Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a safe low-cost tool that enables diagnosis, monitoring and guidance for interventional procedures at the patient's bedside. However, its expansion is hindered by a lack of training programs and the inherent difficulty of interpreting ultrasound images. In this context, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is emerging as a supportive tool for LUS interpretation, ensuring diagnostic efficacy and mitigating the shortage of experts. This systematic review aims to summarize and analyze recent advances in AI-based tools to support LUS interpretation. A systematic literature search was conducted across Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and PubMed databases to identify peer-reviewed original journal articles published between 2015 and November 2025 that employed AI for the identification and localization of lung artifacts, anatomical structures, and pathological findings. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST + AI. Twenty-four studies were included, identifying three main strategies: segmentation (10 studies), object detection (4 studies), and the generation of visual explanations through saliency maps (10 studies). All employed CNN-based architectures. The evaluation metrics used were heterogeneous. The PROBAST + AI assessment showed relevant risk-of-bias concerns, mainly concentrated in the participants and analysis domains. The development of AI systems to support LUS interpretation shows high potential; however, current studies exhibit significant heterogeneity in their objectives, methodologies, and evaluation metrics. It is necessary to move towards solutions designed for specific clinical environments and to adopt standardized protocols and evaluations that facilitate their implementation in clinical practice. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261322517, PROSPERO CRD420261322517.