Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37891360›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2023

Deep learning for the detection of benign and malignant pulmonary nodules in non-screening chest CT scans.

Ward Hendrix, Nils Hendrix, Ernst T Scholten, Mariëlle Mourits, Joline Trap-de Jong, Steven Schalekamp, Mike Korst, Maarten van Leuken, Bram van Ginneken, Mathias Prokop and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
17.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Artificial intelligence predictsVeterinary pathology · 2026
    Article
  5. Insertion Network for Image Sequence Correspondence Building.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Incidental Pulmonary Nodules: What Should We Do in 2026?Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ward HendrixDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3357-2959
Nils HendrixDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ernst T ScholtenDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mariëlle MouritsRadiology Department, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0796-8554
Joline Trap-de JongRadiology Department, St. Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Steven SchalekampDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mike KorstRadiology Department, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Henri Dunantstraat 1, 5223 GZ, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.
Maarten van LeukenRadiology Department, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Weg door Jonkerbos 100, 6532 SZ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Bram van GinnekenDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mathias ProkopDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Matthieu RuttenDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8651-6646
Colin JacobsDiagnostic Imaging Analysis Group, Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Department, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. colin.jacobs@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1180-3805
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLJeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOutside a screening program, early-stage lung cancer is generally diagnosed after the detection of incidental nodules in clinically ordered chest CT scans. Despite the advances in artificial intelligence (AI) systems for lung cancer detection, clinical validation of these systems is lacking in a non-screening setting.

methodWe developed a deep learning-based AI system and assessed its performance for the detection of actionable benign nodules (requiring follow-up), small lung cancers, and pulmonary metastases in CT scans acquired in two Dutch hospitals (internal and external validation). A panel of five thoracic radiologists labeled all nodules, and two additional radiologists verified the nodule malignancy status and searched for any missed cancers using data from the national Netherlands Cancer Registry. The detection performance was evaluated by measuring the sensitivity at predefined false positive rates on a free receiver operating characteristic curve and was compared with the panel of radiologists.

resultsOn the external test set (100 scans from 100 patients), the sensitivity of the AI system for detecting benign nodules, primary lung cancers, and metastases is respectively 94.3% (82/87, 95% CI: 88.1-98.8%), 96.9% (31/32, 95% CI: 91.7-100%), and 92.0% (104/113, 95% CI: 88.5-95.5%) at a clinically acceptable operating point of 1 false positive per scan (FP/s). These sensitivities are comparable to or higher than the radiologists, albeit with a slightly higher FP/s (average difference of 0.6).

conclusionsThe AI system reliably detects benign and malignant pulmonary nodules in clinically indicated CT scans and can potentially assist radiologists in this setting.

Identifiers

PMID37891360
PMCPMC10611755
OpenAlexW4387969470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.