Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27721474›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Effects of contrast-enhancement, reconstruction slice thickness and convolution kernel on the diagnostic performance of radiomics signature in solitary pulmonary nodule.

Lan He, Yanqi Huang, Zelan Ma, Cuishan Liang, Changhong Liang, Zaiyi Liu

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 154 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
154citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

154 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

94 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Lan HeDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China.
Yanqi HuangDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China.
Zelan MaDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China.
Cuishan LiangDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China.
Changhong LiangDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China.
Zaiyi LiuDepartment of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Effects of contrast-enhancement, reconstruction slice thickness and convolution kernel on the diagnostic performance of radiomics signature in solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) remains unclear. 240 patients with SPNs (malignant, n = 180; benign, n = 60) underwent non-contrast CT (NECT) and contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) which were reconstructed with different slice thickness and convolution kernel. 150 radiomics features were extracted separately from each set of CT and diagnostic performance of each feature were assessed. After feature selection and radiomics signature construction, diagnostic performance of radiomics signature for discriminating benign and malignant SPN was also assessed with respect to the discrimination and classification and compared with net reclassification improvement (NRI). Our results showed NECT-based radiomics signature demonstrated better discrimination and classification capability than CECT in both primary (AUC: 0.862 vs. 0.829, p = 0.032; NRI = 0.578) and validation cohort (AUC: 0.750 vs. 0.735, p = 0.014; NRI = 0.023). Thin-slice (1.25 mm) CT-based radiomics signature had better diagnostic performance than thick-slice CT (5 mm) in both primary (AUC: 0.862 vs. 0.785, p = 0.015; NRI = 0.867) and validation cohort (AUC: 0.750 vs. 0.725, p = 0.025; NRI = 0.467). Standard convolution kernel-based radiomics signature had better diagnostic performance than lung convolution kernel-based CT in both primary (AUC: 0.785 vs. 0.770, p = 0.015; NRI = 0.156) and validation cohort (AUC: 0.725 vs.0.686, p = 0.039; NRI = 0.467). Therefore, this study indicates that the contrast-enhancement, reconstruction slice thickness and convolution kernel can affect the diagnostic performance of radiomics signature in SPN, of which non-contrast, thin-slice and standard convolution kernel-based CT is more informative.

Indexed as

AdultDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSolitary Pulmonary NoduleTomography, X-Ray

Identifiers

PMID27721474
PMCPMC5056507

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.