Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22814824›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2012

Performance of computer-aided detection of pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT: comparison with double reading by nodule volume.

Yingru Zhao, Geertruida H de Bock, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, Rob J van Klaveren, Ying Wang, Luca Bogoni, Pim A de Jong, Willem P Mali, Peter M A van Ooijen, Matthijs Oudkerk

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Lung cancer screening: where do we stand?Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Yingru ZhaoCenter for Medical Imaging - North East Netherlands, Department of Radiology, University of Groningen/University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Geertruida H de Bock
Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
Rob J van Klaveren
Ying Wang
Luca Bogoni
Pim A de Jong
Willem P Mali
Peter M A van Ooijen
Matthijs Oudkerk
University Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLSiemens Healthcare (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate performance of computer-aided detection (CAD) beyond double reading for pulmonary nodules on low-dose computed tomography (CT) by nodule volume.

methodsA total of 400 low-dose chest CT examinations were randomly selected from the NELSON lung cancer screening trial. CTs were evaluated by two independent readers and processed by CAD. A total of 1,667 findings marked by readers and/or CAD were evaluated by a consensus panel of expert chest radiologists. Performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity of pulmonary nodule detection and number of false positives, by nodule characteristics and volume.

resultsAccording to the screening protocol, 90.9 % of the findings could be excluded from further evaluation, 49.2 % being small nodules (less than 50 mm(3)). Excluding small nodules reduced false-positive detections by CAD from 3.7 to 1.9 per examination. Of 151 findings that needed further evaluation, 33 (21.9 %) were detected by CAD only, one of them being diagnosed as lung cancer the following year. The sensitivity of nodule detection was 78.1 % for double reading and 96.7 % for CAD. A total of 69.7 % of nodules undetected by readers were attached nodules of which 78.3 % were vessel-attached.

conclusionsCAD is valuable in lung cancer screening to improve sensitivity of pulmonary nodule detection beyond double reading, at a low false-positive rate when excluding small nodules. KEY POINTS: • Computer-aided detection (CAD) has known advantages for computed tomography (CT). • Combined CAD/nodule size cut-off parameters assist CT lung cancer screening. • This combination improves the sensitivity of pulmonary nodule detection by CT. • It increases the positive predictive value for cancer detection.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedRadiation DosageAgedHumansMiddle AgedMultiple Pulmonary NodulesTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID22814824
PMCPMC3431468
OpenAlexW2086762240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.