ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Quantitative analysis of chest MRI images for benign malignant diagnosis of pulmonary solid nodules.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative technologies and their clinical prospects for early lung cancer screening.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Improving Diagnostic Performance for Head and Neck Tumors with Simple Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Machine Learning Bi-Parameter Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development of a clinical prediction model for benign and malignant pulmonary nodules with a CTR ≥ 50% utilizing artificial intelligence-driven radiomics analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this study, we developed and validated machine learning (ML) models by combining radiomic features extracted from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with clinicopathological factors to assess pulmonary nodule classification for benign malignant diagnosis. Methods: A total of 333 consecutive patients with pulmonary nodules (233 in the training cohort and 100 in the validation cohort) were enrolled. A total of 2,824 radiomic features were extracted from the MRI images (CE T1w and T2w). Logistic regression (LR), Naïve Bayes (NB), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) classifiers were used to build the predictive models, and a radiomics score (Rad-score) was obtained for each patient after applying the best prediction model. Clinical factors and Rad-scores were used jointly to build a nomogram model based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, and the diagnostic performance of the five prediction models was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 161 women (48.35%) and 172 men (51.65%) with pulmonary nodules were enrolled. Six important features were selected from the 2,145 radiomic features extracted from CE T1w and T2w images. The XGBoost classifier model achieved the highest discrimination performance with AUCs of 0.901, 0.906, and 0.851 in the training, validation, and test cohorts, respectively. The nomogram model improved the performance with AUC values of 0.918, 0.912, and 0.877 in the training, validation, and test cohorts, respectively. Conclusion: MRI radiomic ML models demonstrated good nodule classification performance with XGBoost, which was superior to that of the other four models. The nomogram model achieved higher performance with the addition of clinical information.
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.