ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
The differential computed tomography features between small benign and malignant solid solitary pulmonary nodules with different sizes.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence and risk factors for malignancy in patients with incidental solitary pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Risk factors for malignant solid pulmonary nodules: a meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Noninvasive differentiation of benign and malignant solid pulmonary nodules using multiparameter dual-layer spectral CT radiomics.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Evaluation of benign and malignant pulmonary nodules based on clinical and contrast-enhanced computed tomography data: a multicenter study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Density homogeneity as a crucial CT indicator for differentiating malignant and benign subcentimeter solid pulmonary nodules: A retrospective multi-center study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Development and validation of CT radiomics diagnostic models: differentiating benign from malignant pulmonary nodules and evaluating malignancy degree.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of vascular architecture in solid solitary pulmonary nodules quantified by dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
- Application value of CT three-dimensional reconstruction technology in the identification of benign and malignant lung nodules and the characteristics of nodule distribution.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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Computed tomography (CT) has been widely known to be the first choice for the diagnosis of solid solitary pulmonary nodules (SSPNs). However, the smaller the SSPN is, the less the differential CT signs between benign and malignant SSPNs there are, which brings great challenges to their diagnosis. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the differential CT features between small (≤15 mm) benign and malignant SSPNs with different sizes. Methods: From May 2018 to November 2021, CT data of 794 patients with small SSPNs (≤15 mm) were retrospectively analyzed. SSPNs were divided into benign and malignant groups, and each group was further classified into three cohorts: cohort I (diameter ≤6 mm), cohort II (6 mm < diameter ≤8 mm), and cohort III (8 mm < diameter ≤15 mm). The differential CT features of benign and malignant SSPNs in three cohorts were identified. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent factors of benign SSPNs. Results: In cohort I, polygonal shape and upper-lobe distribution differed significantly between groups (all P<0.05) and multiparametric analysis showed polygonal shape [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 12.165; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.512-97.872; P=0.019] was the most effective variation for predicting benign SSPNs, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.747 (95% CI: 0.640-0.855; P=0.001). In cohort II, polygonal shape, lobulation, pleural retraction, and air bronchogram differed significantly between groups (all P<0.05), and polygonal shape (OR: 8.870; 95% CI: 1.096-71.772; P=0.041) and the absence of pleural retraction (OR: 0.306; 95% CI: 0.106-0.883; P=0.028) were independent predictors of benign SSPNs, with an AUC of 0.778 (95% CI: 0.694-0.863; P<0.001). In cohort III, 12 CT features showed significant differences between groups (all P<0.05) and polygonal shape (OR: 3.953; 95% CI: 1.508-10.361; P=0.005); calcification (OR: 3.710; 95% CI: 1.305-10.551; P=0.014); halo sign (OR: 6.237; 95% CI: 2.838-13.710; P<0.001); satellite lesions (OR: 6.554; 95% CI: 3.225-13.318; P<0.001); and the absence of lobulation (OR: 0.066; 95% CI: 0.026-0.167; P<0.001), air space (OR: 0.405; 95% CI: 0.215-0.764; P=0.005), pleural retraction (OR: 0.297; 95% CI: 0.179-0.493; P<0.001), bronchial truncation (OR: 0.165; 95% CI: 0.090-0.303; P<0.001), and air bronchogram (OR: 0.363; 95% CI: 0.208-0.633; P<0.001) were independent predictors of benign SSPNs, with an AUC of 0.869 (95% CI: 0.840-0.897; P<0.001). Conclusions: CT features vary between SSPNs with different sizes. Clarifying the differential CT features based on different diameter ranges may help to minimize ambiguities and discriminate the benign SSPNs from malignant ones.
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.