ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Non-contrast and contrast enhanced computed tomography radiomics in preoperative discrimination of lung invasive and non-invasive adenocarcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-center and multi-reader comparison of abdominopelvic non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CT in the postoperative surveillance of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Explainable PET-Based Habitat Modeling for Predicting Postoperative Recurrence Risk in Invasive Lung Adenocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Predictive Value of Quantitative Parameters ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the value of radiomics based on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images in the preoperative discrimination between lung invasive adenocarcinomas (IAC) and non-invasive adenocarcinomas (non-IAC). Methods: We enrolled 1,185 pulmonary nodules (478 non-IACs and 707 IACs) to build and validate radiomics models. An external testing set comprising 63 pulmonary nodules was collected to verify the generalization of the models. Radiomic features were extracted from both NCCT and CECT images. The predictive performance of radiomics models in the validation and external testing sets were evaluated and compared with radiologists' evaluations. The predictive performances of the radiomics models were also compared between three subgroups in the validation set (Group 1: solid nodules, Group 2: part-solid nodules, and Group 3: pure ground-glass nodules). Results: The NCCT, CECT, and combined models showed good ability to discriminate between IAC and non-IAC [respective areas under the curve (AUCs): validation set = 0.91, 0.90, and 0.91; Group 1 = 0.82, 0.79, and 0.81; Group 2 = 0.93, 0.92, and 0.93; and Group 3 = 0.90, 0.90, and 0.89]. In the external testing set, the AUC of the three models were 0.89, 0.91, and 0.89, respectively. The accuracies of these three models were comparable to those of the senior radiologist and better those that of the junior radiologist. Conclusion: Radiomic models based on CT images showed good predictive performance in discriminating between lung IAC and non-IAC, especially in part solid nodule group. However, radiomics based on CECT images provided no additional value compared to NCCT images.
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.