ArticleClinical physiology and functional imaging2022
Automated classification of PET-CT lesions in lung cancer: An independent validation study.
Article in Clinical physiology and functional imaging, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Thorough Review of the Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Automated classification of PET-CT lesions in lung cancer: An independent validation study.Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecently, a tool called the positron emission tomography (PET)-assisted reporting system (PARS) was developed and presented to classify lesions in PET/computed tomography (CT) studies in patients with lung cancer or lymphoma. The aim of this study was to validate PARS with an independent group of lung-cancer patients using manual lesion segmentations as a reference standard, as well as to evaluate the association between PARS-based measurements and overall survival (OS).
methodsThis study retrospectively included 115 patients who had undergone clinically indicated (18F)-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT due to suspected or known lung cancer. The patients had a median age of 66 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-72 years). Segmentations were made manually by visual inspection in a consensus reading by two nuclear medicine specialists and used as a reference. The research prototype PARS was used to automatically analyse all the PET/CT studies. The PET foci classified as suspicious by PARS were compared with the manual segmentations. No manual corrections were applied. Total lesion glycolysis (TLG) was calculated based on the manual and PARS-based lung-tumour segmentations. Associations between TLG and OS were investigated using Cox analysis.
resultsPARS showed sensitivities for lung tumours of 55.6% per lesion and 80.2% per patient. Both manual and PARS TLG were significantly associated with OS.
conclusionAutomatically calculated TLG by PARS contains prognostic information comparable to manually measured TLG in patients with known or suspected lung cancer. The low sensitivity at both the lesion and patient levels makes the present version of PARS less useful to support clinical reading, reporting and staging.
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.