ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Interobserver variability in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System categorisation in subsolid nodule-enriched lung cancer screening CTs.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interobserver Variability in Lung-RADS Categorization Between Tertiary and Non-Tertiary Hospitals, and Its Implications for Patient Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Semantic CT features and differentiation model: new primary lung cancer versus metastasis after previous malignancy.European radiology · 2026Article
- LungCNET: A High-Performance Deep CNN Model for Lung Cancer Detection Evaluated Against Widely Used CNN Benchmarks.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based computed tomography quantification integrated with circulating tumor cells for prognostic evaluation in stage I lung adenocarcinoma.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- A narrative review on CT-based evaluation and prediction of lung nodule growth: current status and future directions.Translational lung cancer research · 2026Review
- Radiomics in Lung Cancer Imaging: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Concurrent AI assistance with LI-RADS classification for contrast enhanced MRI of focal hepatic nodules: a multi-reader, multi-case study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Advantages of integrating artificial intelligence and spectral CT for lung nodule classification and prognostic judgment: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Using AI system to detect active tuberculosis in a high-prevalence setting on CT scans: a multi-center study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Nodule Characteristics, Clinical Risk Factors, and Radiologist Experience as Predictors of Positive Baseline LDCT Screening Results.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- External validation of AI for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer using biparametric MRI.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars? Not Yet!European urology open science · 2023Article
- Community-based Lung Cancer Screening Results in Relation to Patient and Radiologist Characteristics: The PROSPR Consortium.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess interobserver agreement in Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) categorisation in subsolid nodule-enriched low-dose screening CTs.
methodsA retrospective review of low-dose screening CT reports from 2013 to 2017 using keyword searches for subsolid nodules identified 54 baseline CT scans. With an additional 108 negative screening CT scans, a total of 162 CT scans were categorised according to the Lung-RADS by two fellowship-trained thoracic radiologists in consensus. We randomly selected 20, 20, 10, and 10 scans from categories 1/2, 3, 4A, and 4B CT scans, respectively, to ensure balanced category representation. Five radiologists classified the 60 CT scans into Lung-RADS categories. The frequencies of concordance and minor and major discordance were calculated, with major discordance defined as at least 6 months of management discrepancy. We used Cohen's κ statistics to analyse reader agreement.
resultsAn average of 60.3% (181 of 300) of all cases and 45.0% (90 of 200) of positive screens were correctly categorised. The minor and major discordance rates were 12.3% and 27.3% overall and 18.5% and 36.5% in positive screens, respectively. The concordance rate was significantly higher among experienced thoracic radiologists. Overall, the interobserver agreement was moderate (mean κ, 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.51). The proportion of part-solid risk-dominant nodules was significantly higher in cases with low rates of accurate categorisation.
conclusionThis retrospective study observed variable accuracy and moderate interobserver agreement in radiologist categorisation of subsolid nodules in screening CTs. This inconsistency may affect management recommendations for lung cancer screening. KEY POINTS: • Diagnostic performance for Lung-RADS categorisation is variable among radiologists with fair to moderate interobserver agreement in subsolid nodule-enriched CT scans. • Experienced thoracic radiologists showed more accurate and consistent Lung-RADS categorisation than radiology residents. • The relative abundance of part-solid nodules was a potential factor related to increased disagreement in Lung-RADS categorisation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33733688What 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.