Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36330188›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Assessment of COVID-19 lung involvement on computed tomography by deep-learning-, threshold-, and human reader-based approaches-an international, multi-center comparative study.

Philipp Fervers, Florian Fervers, Astha Jaiswal, Miriam Rinneburger, Mathilda Weisthoff, Philip Pollmann-Schweckhorst, Jonathan Kottlors, Heike Carolus, Simon Lennartz, David Maintz and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Performance of AI Approaches for COVID-19 Diagnosis Using Chest CT Scans: The Impact of Architecture and Dataset.RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Philipp FerversDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Florian FerversFraunhofer Institute of Optronics, System Technologies and Image Exploitation IOSB, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Astha JaiswalDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Miriam RinneburgerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Mathilda WeisthoffDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Philip Pollmann-SchweckhorstChair in Marketing Science and Analytics, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jonathan KottlorsDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Heike CarolusPhilips CT Clinical Science, Philips Healthcare, Hamburg, Germany.
Simon LennartzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
David MaintzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Rahil ShahzadDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thorsten PersigehlDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEPhilips (Germany) · DEFraunhofer Institute of Optronics, System Technologies and Image Exploitation · DEUniversity of Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The extent of lung involvement in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, quantified on computed tomography (CT), is an established biomarker for prognosis and guides clinical decision-making. The clinical standard is semi-quantitative scoring of lung involvement by an experienced reader. We aim to compare the performance of automated deep-learning- and threshold-based methods to the manual semi-quantitative lung scoring. Further, we aim to investigate an optimal threshold for quantification of involved lung in COVID pneumonia chest CT, using a multi-center dataset. Methods: In total 250 patients were included, 50 consecutive patients with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 from our local institutional database, and another 200 patients from four international datasets (n=50 each). Lung involvement was scored semi-quantitatively by three experienced radiologists according to the established chest CT score (CCS) ranging from 0-25. Inter-rater reliability was reported by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Deep-learning-based segmentation of ground-glass and consolidation was obtained by CT Pulmo Auto Results prototype plugin on IntelliSpace Discovery (Philips Healthcare, The Netherlands). Threshold-based segmentation of involved lung was implemented using an open-source tool for whole-lung segmentation under the presence of severe pathologies (R231CovidWeb, Hofmanninger Results: Median CCS among 250 evaluated patients was 10 [6-15]. Inter-rater reliability of the CCS was excellent [ICC 0.97 (0.97-0.98)]. Best attenuation threshold for identification of involved lung was -522 HU. While the relationship of deep-learning- and threshold-based quantification was linear and strong (r Conclusions: The manual semi-quantitative CCS underestimates the extent of COVID pneumonia in higher score ranges, which limits its clinical usefulness in cases of severe disease. Clinical implementation of fully automated methods, such as deep-learning or threshold-based approaches (best threshold in our multi-center dataset: -522 HU), might save time of trained personnel, abolish inter-reader variability, and allow for truly quantitative, linear assessment of COVID lung involvement.

Indexed as

biomarkersCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)linear modelspneumoniatomographyX-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID36330188
PMCPMC9622452
OpenAlexW4296087304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.