ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2024
Comparison of different classification systems for pulmonary nodules: a multicenter retrospective study in China.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deep cross entropy fusion for pulmonary nodule classification based on ultrasound Imagery.Frontiers in oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the diagnostic performance of Lung-RADS (lung imaging-reporting and data system) 2022 and PNI-GARS (pulmonary node imaging-grading and reporting system).
methodsPulmonary nodules (PNs) were selected at four centers, namely, CQ Center (January 1, 2018-December 31, 2021), HB Center (January 1, 2021-June 30, 2022), SC Center (September 1, 2021-December 31, 2021), and SX Center (January 1, 2021-December 31, 2021). PNs were divided into solid nodules (SNs), partial solid nodules (PSNs) and ground-glass nodules (GGNs), and they were then classified by the Lung-RADS and PNI-GARS. The sensitivity, specificity and agreement rate were compared between the two systems by the χ
resultsFor SN and PSN, the sensitivity of PNI-GARS and Lung-RADS was close (SN 99.8% vs. 99.4%, P < 0.001; PSN 99.9% vs. 98.4%, P = 0.015), but the specificity (SN 51.2% > 35.1%, PSN 13.3% > 5.7%, all P < 0.001) and agreement rate (SN 81.1% > 74.5%, P < 0.001, PSN 94.6% > 92.7%, all P < 0.05) of PNI-GARS were superior to those of Lung-RADS. For GGN, the sensitivity (96.5%) and agreement rate (88.6%) of PNI-GARS were better than those of Lung-RADS (0, 18.5%, P < 0.001). For the whole sample, the sensitivity (98.5%) and agreement rate (87.0%) of PNI-GARS were better than Lung-RADS (57.5%, 56.5%, all P < 0.001), whereas the specificity was slightly lower (49.8% < 53.4%, P = 0.003).
conclusionPNI-GARS was superior to Lung-RADS in diagnostic performance, especially for GGN.
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.