Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30515286›Full record

ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2018

A Computer-Aided Pipeline for Automatic Lung Cancer Classification on Computed Tomography Scans.

Emre Dandıl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

1 author.

Emre DandılDepartment of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Bilecik Seyh Edebali University, Gulumbe Campus, 11210 Bilecik, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0001-6559-1399

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer is one of the most common cancer types. For the survival of the patient, early detection of lung cancer with the best treatment method is crucial. In this study, we propose a novel computer-aided pipeline on computed tomography (CT) scans for early diagnosis of lung cancer thanks to the classification of benign and malignant nodules. The proposed pipeline is composed of four stages. In preprocessing steps, CT images are enhanced, and lung volumes are extracted from the image with the help of a novel method called lung volume extraction method (LUVEM). The significance of the proposed pipeline is using LUVEM for extracting lung region. In nodule detection stage, candidate nodules are determined according to the circular Hough transform- (CHT-) based method. Then, lung nodules are segmented with self-organizing maps (SOM). In feature computation stage, intensity, shape, texture, energy, and combined features are used for feature extraction, and principal component analysis (PCA) is used for feature reduction step. In the final stage, probabilistic neural network (PNN) classifies benign and malign nodules. According to the experiments performed on our dataset, the proposed pipeline system can classify benign and malign nodules with 95.91% accuracy, 97.42% sensitivity, and 94.24% specificity. Even in cases of small-sized nodules (3-10 mm), the proposed system can determine the nodule type with 94.68% accuracy.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAlgorithmsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLungLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerPrincipal Component AnalysisProbabilityReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID30515286
PMCPMC6236771

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.