Trial reportPloS one2018
Novel high-resolution computed tomography-based radiomic classifier for screen-identified pulmonary nodules in the National Lung Screening Trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Towards clinical application of image mining: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and radiomics.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019Pooled it
- Radiomics machine learning models for lung cancer early diagnosis in heterogenous multicentre chest CT data: LIBRA study results.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Training set augmentation and biology-aware harmonization improve radiomic models for lung cancer prediction in indeterminate nodules.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Radiomics-based high-resolution CT analysis for differentiating primary tumor sources of pulmonary metastases.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Training Set Augmentation and Harmonization Enables Radiomic Models to Detect Early Onset of Lung Cancer.Research square · 2025Article
- Radiomics and artificial intelligence for risk stratification of pulmonary nodules: Ready for primetime?Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Review
- Radiomics in radiology: What the radiologist needs to know about technical aspects and clinical impact.La Radiologia medica · 2024Review
- Article
- Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of the Artificial Intelligence Methods in Medical Imaging for Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Non-Invasive Biomarkers for Early Lung Cancer Detection.Cancers · 2022Review
- A multidimensional model incorporating radiomics score and liquid biopsy for the prediction of malignant and benign pulmonary nodules.Translational cancer research · 2022Article
- Deep Learning Algorithms for Diagnosis of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2022Review
- Form Factors as Potential Imaging Biomarkers to Differentiate Benign vs. Malignant Lung Lesions on CT Scans.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Radiomics in Early Lung Cancer Diagnosis: From Diagnosis to Clinical Decision Support and Education.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- DeepLN: A Multi-Task AI Tool to Predict the Imaging Characteristics, Malignancy and Pathological Subtypes in CT-Detected Pulmonary Nodules.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Application of Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence for Lung Cancer Precision Medicine.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2021Review
- Validation of the BRODERS classifier (BenignThe European respiratory journal · 2021Article
- External validation of radiomics-based predictive models in low-dose CT screening for early lung cancer diagnosis.Medical physics · 2020Article
- Tumor density is associated with response to endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle injection of cisplatin.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOptimization of the clinical management of screen-detected lung nodules is needed to avoid unnecessary diagnostic interventions. Herein we demonstrate the potential value of a novel radiomics-based approach for the classification of screen-detected indeterminate nodules. MATERIAL AND
methodsIndependent quantitative variables assessing various radiologic nodule features such as sphericity, flatness, elongation, spiculation, lobulation and curvature were developed from the NLST dataset using 726 indeterminate nodules (all ≥ 7 mm, benign, n = 318 and malignant, n = 408). Multivariate analysis was performed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method for variable selection and regularization in order to enhance the prediction accuracy and interpretability of the multivariate model. The bootstrapping method was then applied for the internal validation and the optimism-corrected AUC was reported for the final model.
resultsEight of the originally considered 57 quantitative radiologic features were selected by LASSO multivariate modeling. These 8 features include variables capturing Location: vertical location (Offset carina centroid z), Size: volume estimate (Minimum enclosing brick), Shape: flatness, Density: texture analysis (Score Indicative of Lesion/Lung Aggression/Abnormality (SILA) texture), and surface characteristics: surface complexity (Maximum shape index and Average shape index), and estimates of surface curvature (Average positive mean curvature and Minimum mean curvature), all with P<0.01. The optimism-corrected AUC for these 8 features is 0.939.
conclusionsOur novel radiomic LDCT-based approach for indeterminate screen-detected nodule characterization appears extremely promising however independent external validation is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.