ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Quantitative CT and machine learning classification of fibrotic interstitial lung diseases.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnosis accuracy of machine learning for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Volume histogram analysis of whole-lung CT: differentiating usual from nonspecific interstitial pneumonias and predicting prognosis.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Deep learning for classifying imaging patterns of interstitial lung disease associated with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Radiomics based on HRCT can predict RP-ILD and mortality in anti-MDA5 + dermatomyositis patients: a multi-center retrospective study.Respiratory research · 2024Article
- Recent Advances of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Interstitial Lung Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate quantitative computed tomography (QCT) features and QCT feature-based machine learning (ML) models in classifying interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). To compare QCT-ML and deep learning (DL) models' performance.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 1085 patients with pathologically proven usual interstitial pneumonitis (UIP), nonspecific interstitial pneumonitis (NSIP), and chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) who underwent peri-biopsy chest CT. Kruskal-Wallis test evaluated QCT feature associations with each ILD. QCT features, patient demographics, and pulmonary function test (PFT) results trained eXtreme Gradient Boosting (training/validation set n = 911) yielding 3 models: M1 = QCT features only; M2 = M1 plus age and sex; M3 = M2 plus PFT results. A DL model was also developed. ML and DL model areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compared for multiclass (UIP vs. NSIP vs. CHP) and binary (UIP vs. non-UIP) classification performances.
resultsThe majority (69/78 [88%]) of QCT features successfully differentiated the 3 ILDs (adjusted p ≤ 0.05). All QCT-ML models achieved higher AUC than the DL model (multiclass AUC micro-averages 0.910, 0.910, 0.925, and 0.798 and macro-averages 0.895, 0.893, 0.925, and 0.779 for M1, M2, M3, and DL respectively; binary AUC 0.880, 0.899, 0.898, and 0.869 for M1, M2, M3, and DL respectively). M3 demonstrated statistically significant better performance compared to M2 (∆AUC: 0.015, CI: [0.002, 0.029]) for multiclass prediction.
conclusionsQCT features successfully differentiated pathologically proven UIP, NSIP, and CHP. While QCT-based ML models outperformed a DL model for classifying ILDs, further investigations are warranted to determine if QCT-ML, DL, or a combination will be superior in ILD classification. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative CT features successfully differentiated pathologically proven UIP, NSIP, and CHP. • Our quantitative CT-based machine learning models demonstrated high performance in classifying UIP, NSIP, and CHP histopathology, outperforming a deep learning model. • While our quantitative CT-based machine learning models performed better than a DL model, additional investigations are needed to determine whether either or a combination of both approaches delivers superior diagnostic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35678861What 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.