ArticleEuropean radiology2024
Machine learning slice-wise whole-lung CT emphysema score correlates with airway obstruction.
Article in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesQuantitative CT imaging is an important emphysema biomarker, especially in smoking cohorts, but does not always correlate to radiologists' visual CT assessments. The objectives were to develop and validate a neural network-based slice-wise whole-lung emphysema score (SWES) for chest CT, to validate SWES on unseen CT data, and to compare SWES with a conventional quantitative CT method. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeparate cohorts were used for algorithm development and validation. For validation, thin-slice CT stacks from 474 participants in the prospective cross-sectional Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS) were included, 395 randomly selected and 79 from an emphysema cohort. Spirometry (FEV1/FVC) and radiologists' visual emphysema scores (sum-visual) obtained at inclusion in SCAPIS were used as reference tests. SWES was compared with a commercially available quantitative emphysema scoring method (LAV950) using Pearson's correlation coefficients and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis.
resultsSWES correlated more strongly with the visual scores than LAV950 (r = 0.78 vs. r = 0.41, p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve for the prediction of airway obstruction was larger for SWES than for LAV950 (0.76 vs. 0.61, p = 0.007). SWES correlated more strongly with FEV1/FVC than either LAV950 or sum-visual in the full cohort (r = - 0.69 vs. r = - 0.49/r = - 0.64, p < 0.001/p = 0.007), in the emphysema cohort (r = - 0.77 vs. r = - 0.69/r = - 0.65, p = 0.03/p = 0.002), and in the random sample (r = - 0.39 vs. r = - 0.26/r = - 0.25, p = 0.001/p = 0.007).
conclusionThe slice-wise whole-lung emphysema score (SWES) correlates better than LAV950 with radiologists' visual emphysema scores and correlates better with airway obstruction than do LAV950 and radiologists' visual scores. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: The slice-wise whole-lung emphysema score provides quantitative emphysema information for CT imaging that avoids the disadvantages of threshold-based scores and is correlated more strongly with reference tests than LAV950 and reader visual scores. KEY POINTS: • A slice-wise whole-lung emphysema score (SWES) was developed to quantify emphysema in chest CT images. • SWES identified visual emphysema and spirometric airflow limitation significantly better than threshold-based score (LAV950). • SWES improved emphysema quantification in CT images, which is especially useful in large-scale research.
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.