ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Evaluation of a novel deep learning-based classifier for perifissural nodules.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Negligible impact of perifissural nodules in an AI-first reader workflow from UK lung screening trial.European radiology · 2026Article
- Scientific evidence of commercial artificial intelligence products for pulmonary nodule assessment on CT scans: a systematic review.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the performance of a novel convolutional neural network (CNN) for the classification of typical perifissural nodules (PFN).
methodsChest CT data from two centers in the UK and The Netherlands (1668 unique nodules, 1260 individuals) were collected. Pulmonary nodules were classified into subtypes, including "typical PFNs" on-site, and were reviewed by a central clinician. The dataset was divided into a training/cross-validation set of 1557 nodules (1103 individuals) and a test set of 196 nodules (158 individuals). For the test set, three radiologically trained readers classified the nodules into three nodule categories: typical PFN, atypical PFN, and non-PFN. The consensus of the three readers was used as reference to evaluate the performance of the PFN-CNN. Typical PFNs were considered as positive results, and atypical PFNs and non-PFNs were grouped as negative results. PFN-CNN performance was evaluated using the ROC curve, confusion matrix, and Cohen's kappa.
resultsInternal validation yielded a mean AUC of 91.9% (95% CI 90.6-92.9) with 78.7% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity. For the test set, the reader consensus rated 45/196 (23%) of nodules as typical PFN. The classifier-reader agreement (k = 0.62-0.75) was similar to the inter-reader agreement (k = 0.64-0.79). Area under the ROC curve was 95.8% (95% CI 93.3-98.4), with a sensitivity of 95.6% (95% CI 84.9-99.5), and specificity of 88.1% (95% CI 81.8-92.8).
conclusionThe PFN-CNN showed excellent performance in classifying typical PFNs. Its agreement with radiologically trained readers is within the range of inter-reader agreement. Thus, the CNN-based system has potential in clinical and screening settings to rule out perifissural nodules and increase reader efficiency. KEY POINTS: • Agreement between the PFN-CNN and radiologically trained readers is within the range of inter-reader agreement. • The CNN model for the classification of typical PFNs achieved an AUC of 95.8% (95% CI 93.3-98.4) with 95.6% (95% CI 84.9-99.5) sensitivity and 88.1% (95% CI 81.8-92.8) specificity compared to the consensus of three readers.
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.