Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33282401›Full record

ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020

Putting artificial intelligence (AI) on the spot: machine learning evaluation of pulmonary nodules.

Yasmeen K Tandon, Brian J Bartholmai, Chi Wan Koo

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Challenging the significance of SUV-based parameters in a large-scale retrospective study on lung lesions.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yasmeen K TandonDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Brian J BartholmaiDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Chi Wan KooDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer related death world-wide despite advances in treatment. This largely relates to the fact that many of these patients already have advanced diseases at the time of initial diagnosis. As most lung cancers present as nodules initially, an accurate classification of pulmonary nodules as early lung cancers is critical to reducing lung cancer morbidity and mortality. There have been significant recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) for lung nodule evaluation. Deep learning (DL) and convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have shown promising results in pulmonary nodule detection and have also excelled in segmentation and classification of pulmonary nodules. This review aims to provide an overview of progress that has been made in AI recently for pulmonary nodule detection and characterization with the ultimate goal of lung cancer prediction and classification while outlining some of the pitfalls and challenges that remain to bring such advancements to routine clinical use.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligence (AI)machine learning (ML)pulmonary nodule

Identifiers

PMID33282401
PMCPMC7711413
OpenAlexW3048191035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.