Accuracy Of Spirometric Interpretation by Artificial Intelligence-Based Software in Comparison with Spirometric Interpretation by A Qualified Respiratory Physician in A Tertiary Care Center in Chengalpattu District
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v14i32S.7462Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, Spirometry Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, Pulmonologist, ChatGPTAbstract
Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming respiratory care by enhancing diagnostic accuracy and streamlining workflows. The efficacy of free AI tools for spirometry interpretation, particularly in the Indian population, remains largely unassessed. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ChatGPT for spirometry interpretation compared with that of qualified respiratory physicians in a south Indian tertiary care setting.
Methods: This cross-sectional study included 100 anonymised spirometry reports that met the ATS/ERS criteria. These reports were interpreted by respiratory physicians (gold standard), and the same reports were uploaded to ChatGPT. Interpretations of the spirometry were based on ATS/ERS guidelines using Z-scores and flow-volume loops. Statistical analyses included specificity, sensitivity using proportion agreement, kappa statistics, and ROC curve analyses.
Results: The 100 spirometry reports simultaneously analysed by AI & respiratory physicians overall normal vs. abnormal classification accuracy was 99%. For Z-score interpretation, the AI reported normal (25% vs. 26%), restriction (22% vs. 19%) obstruction (39% vs. 28%), and mixed (17% vs. 24%) compared to respiratory physician interpretation. In classifying flow-volume loop patterns, AI showed normal (30% vs 26%), restriction (18% vs. 26%) obstruction (50% vs. 38%), and mixed (2% vs. 10%) compared with respiratory physicians. In the final interpretation combining z-score & flow volume loop, AI interpretation was - 25% normal, 19% restriction, 39% obstruction, & 17% mixed, compared to the respiratory physician interpretation 26% normal, 21% restriction, 29% obstruction, & 24% mixed. AI achieved 99% agreement for normal, 98% for restriction, 90% for obstruction 93% for mixed.
Conclusion: ChatGPT is a promising tool for spirometry interpretation, but other similar AI platforms with larger samples need to be assessed before formal recommendations can be made.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Bajwa J, Munir U, Nori A, Williams B. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: transforming the practice of medicine. Future Healthc J 2021;8: e188–94. https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2021-0095.
Al-Anazi S, Al-Omari A, Alanazi S, Marar A, Asad M, Alawaji F, et al. Artificial intelligence in respiratory care: Current scenario and future perspective. Ann Thorac Med 2024; 19:117–30. https://doi.org/10.4103/atm.atm_192_23.
India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative CRD Collaborators. The burden of chronic respiratory diseases and their heterogeneity across the states of India: The Global Burden of Disease Study 1990-2016. Lancet Glob Health 2018;6: e1363–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30409-1.
Ponce MC, Sankari A, Sharma S. Pulmonary function tests. Stat Pearls, Treasure Island (FL): Stat Pearls Publishing; 2025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482339/.
Sim YS, Lee J-H, Lee W-Y, Suh DI, Oh Y-M, Yoon J-S, et al. Spirometry and bronchodilator test. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul) 2017; 80:105–12. https://doi.org/10.4046/trd.2017.80.2.105.
Kaplan A, Cao H, FitzGerald JM, Iannotti N, Yang E, Kocks JWH, et al. Artificial intelligence/machine learning in respiratory medicine and potential role in asthma and COPD diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2021; 9:2255–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2021.02.014.
Health Innovation Network, North-East and North Cumbria ArtiQ, a Clario company, Leuven, Belgium School of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences and Wellbeing, University of Sunderland. Using artificial intelligence to improve spirometry provision: a case study. Org.uk.2024 https://healthinnovationnenc.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2025/03/spirometry_final.pdf.
Krishnan G, Singh S, Pathania M, Gosavi S, Abhishek S, Parchani A, et al. Artificial intelligence in clinical medicine: catalyzing a sustainable global healthcare paradigm. Front Artif Intell 2023; 6:1227091. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1227091.
Moreno Mendez R, Marín A, Ferrando JR, Rissi Castro G, Cepeda Madrigal S, Agostini G, et al. Artificial intelligence applied to forced spirometry in primary care. Open Respir Arch 2024; 6:100313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.opresp.2024.100313.
Yadav P, Rastogi V, Yadav A, Parashar P. Artificial Intelligence: A promising tool in the diagnosis of respiratory diseases. Intelligent Pharmacy 2024; 2:784–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipha.2024.05.002
Topalovic M, Das N, Burgel P-R, Daenen M, Derom E, Haenebalcke C, et al. Artificial intelligence outperforms pulmonologists in the interpretation of pulmonary function tests. Eur Respir J 2019; 53:1801660. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01660-2018.
Gottlieb M, Patel D, Viars M, Tsintolas J, Peksa GD, Bailitz J. Comparison of artificial intelligence versus real-time physician assessment of pulmonary oedema with lung ultrasound. Am J Emerg Med 2023; 70:109–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2023.05.029.
Saad T, Pandey R, Padarya S, Singh P, Singh S, Mishra N. Application of artificial intelligence in the interpretation of pulmonary function tests. Cureus 2025;17: e82056. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.82056
Das N, Happaerts S, Gyselinck I, Staes M, Derom E, Brusselle G, et al. Collaboration between explainable artificial intelligence and pulmonologists improves the accuracy of pulmonary function test interpretation. Eur Respir J 2023;61. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01720-2022.
Sunjaya A, Edwards GD, Harvey J, Sylvester K, Purvis J, Rutter M, et al. Validation of artificial intelligence spirometry diagnostic support software in primary care: a blinded diagnostic accuracy study. ERJ Open Res 2025:00116–2025. https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00116-2025.
Delclaux C. No need for pulmonologists to interpret pulmonary function tests. Eur Respir J 2019; 54:1900829. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00829-2019.
Brusasco V, Pellegrino R. Pulmonary function interpretative strategies: from statistics to clinical practice. Eur Respir J 2022; 60:2200317. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00317-2022.
Wang Y, Li Y, Chen W, Zhang C, Liang L, Huang R, et al. Deep learning for spirometry quality assurance with spirometric indices and curves. Respir Res 2022; 23:98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-022-02014-9.
Topole E, Biondaro S, Montagna I, Corre S, Corradi M, Stanojevic S, et al. Artificial intelligence-based software facilitates spirometry quality control in asthma and COPD clinical trials. ERJ Open Res 2023; 9:00292–2022. https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00292-2022.
Robertson NM, Centner CS, Siddharthan T. Integrating artificial intelligence in the diagnosis of COPD globally: A way forward. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis 2024; 11:114–20. https://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0449
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
