ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2022
A Novel Deep Learning Model to Distinguish Malignant Versus Benign Solid Lung Nodules.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Spectrogram Learning for Gunshot Classification: A Comparative Study of CNN Architectures and Time-Frequency Representations.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- A Holistic Approach to Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Lung Cancer.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- A prediction model based on computed tomography characteristics for identifying malignant from benign sub-centimeter solid pulmonary nodules.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Developing technologies and areas of interest in lung cancer screening adjuncts.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Enhancing Renal Tumor Detection: Leveraging Artificial Neural Networks in Computed Tomography Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND In this study we aimed to establish a new transfer learning model based on noncontrast and thin-layer computed tomography (CT) scans to distinguish between malignant and benign solid lung nodules. MATERIAL AND METHODS CT images from 202 patients with 210 lesions (malignant: 127, benign: 83) manifesting as solid lung nodules from January 2016 to December 2020 from 3 institutions were retrospectively collected, and each nodule was histopathologically confirmed. Two experienced thoracic radiologists reviewed all images and determined the regions of interest (ROIs) in the three-dimensional (3D) images layer-by-layer. We divided the lesions and images into training and testing sets at a ratio of 7: 3. The Inception V3 model was pretrained by the training dataset. Five-fold cross-validation was used to choose the optimal model. Receiver operator characteristic curves (ROC curves) for methods to evaluate the performance of the models were drafted. RESULTS In the validation set, the AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of Inception V3 model (lesion-level) were 0.999, 0.989, 0.983, and 1.0, respectively, which is higher than the image-level (0.997, 0.933, 0.922, and 0.948, respectively). The Inception V3 model (lesion-level) performed better than the image-level but there was no significant difference between the models (P>0.05). The ResNet50 model based on image level achieved AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.963, 0.926, 0.916, and 0.944, respectively, which is lower than that of Inception V3. CONCLUSIONS Our study developed a novel deep learning model based on noncontrast and thin-layer CT scans to classify benign vs malignant lung nodules, and the Inception V3 model greatly improved the differentiation accuracy and specificity.
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.