Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30866425›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Automatic Pulmonary Nodule Detection Applying Deep Learning or Machine Learning Algorithms to the LIDC-IDRI Database: A Systematic Review.

Lea Marie Pehrson, Michael Bachmann Nielsen, Carsten Ammitzbøl Lauridsen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Lung nodule false positive reduction using a central attention convolutional neural network on imbalanced data.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Lea Marie PehrsonDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. lea.marie.pehrson@gmail.com.
Michael Bachmann NielsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Mbn@dadlnet.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-9380-1688
Carsten Ammitzbøl LauridsenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Cala@kp.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the literature available on machine learning (ML) algorithms applied to the Lung Image Database Consortium Image Collection (LIDC-IDRI) database as a tool for the optimization of detecting lung nodules in thoracic CT scans. This systematic review was compiled according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only original research articles concerning algorithms applied to the LIDC-IDRI database were included. The initial search yielded 1972 publications after removing duplicates, and 41 of these articles were included in this study. The articles were divided into two subcategories describing their overall architecture. The majority of feature-based algorithms achieved an accuracy >90% compared to the deep learning (DL) algorithms that achieved an accuracy in the range of 82.2%⁻97.6%. In conclusion, ML and DL algorithms are able to detect lung nodules with a high level of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity using ML, when applied to an annotated archive of CT scans of the lung. However, there is no consensus on the method applied to determine the efficiency of ML algorithms.

Indexed as

deep learningmachine learningnodule detection

Identifiers

PMID30866425
PMCPMC6468920

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.