ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Automatic Image Selection Model Based on Machine Learning for Endobronchial Ultrasound Strain Elastography Videos.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-assisted endobronchial ultrasound for differentiating between benign and malignant thoracic lymph nodes: a meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence and Endobronchial Ultrasound for Lymph-Node Detection and Characterization: A Pioneer Multicenter Transatlantic Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Pulmonary Endoscopy: Current Evidence, Limitations, and Future Directions.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Comparing artificial intelligence and healthcare professional performance in surgical and interventional video analysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Multimodal ultrasound deep learning to detect fibrosis in early chronic kidney disease.Renal failure · 2024Article
- Combination ofFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Interventional Pulmonology.Therapeutic advances in pulmonary and critical care medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EBUS) strain elastography can diagnose intrathoracic benign and malignant lymph nodes (LNs) by reflecting the relative stiffness of tissues. Due to strong subjectivity, it is difficult to give full play to the diagnostic efficiency of strain elastography. This study aims to use machine learning to automatically select high-quality and stable representative images from EBUS strain elastography videos.
methodsLNs with qualified strain elastography videos from June 2019 to November 2019 were enrolled in the training and validation sets randomly at a quantity ratio of 3:1 to train an automatic image selection model using machine learning algorithm. The strain elastography videos in December 2019 were used as the test set, from which three representative images were selected for each LN by the model. Meanwhile, three experts and three trainees selected one representative image severally for each LN on the test set. Qualitative grading score and four quantitative methods were used to evaluate images above to assess the performance of the automatic image selection model.
resultsA total of 415 LNs were included in the training and validation sets and 91 LNs in the test set. Result of the qualitative grading score showed that there was no statistical difference between the three images selected by the machine learning model. Coefficient of variation (CV) values of the four quantitative methods in the machine learning group were all lower than the corresponding CV values in the expert and trainee groups, which demonstrated great stability of the machine learning model. Diagnostic performance analysis on the four quantitative methods showed that the diagnostic accuracies were range from 70.33% to 73.63% in the trainee group, 78.02% to 83.52% in the machine learning group, and 80.22% to 82.42% in the expert group. Moreover, there were no statistical differences in corresponding mean values of the four quantitative methods between the machine learning and expert groups (p >0.05).
conclusionThe automatic image selection model established in this study can help select stable and high-quality representative images from EBUS strain elastography videos, which has great potential in the diagnosis of intrathoracic LNs.
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.