ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Evaluation of Pulmonary Nodules by Radiologists vs. Radiomics in Stand-Alone and Complementary CT and MRI.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel CBGT Model for Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Pulmonary Nodules.BMC psychology · 2025Trial
- Has computer-aided diagnosis now outperformed radiologists in the accurate localization of lung nodules?-a multicenter retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Radiomics-derived classifier performance evaluation in lung nodule characterization compared with expert radiologists.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Auxiliary Diagnosis of Pulmonary Nodules' Benignancy and Malignancy Based on Machine Learning: A Retrospective Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increased attention has been given to MRI in radiation-free screening for malignant nodules in recent years. Our objective was to compare the performance of human readers and radiomic feature analysis based on stand-alone and complementary CT and MRI imaging in classifying pulmonary nodules. This single-center study comprises patients with CT findings of pulmonary nodules who underwent additional lung MRI and whose nodules were classified as benign/malignant by resection. For radiomic features analysis, 2D segmentation was performed for each lung nodule on axial CT, T2-weighted (T2w), and diffusion (DWI) images. The 105 extracted features were reduced by iterative backward selection. The performance of radiomics and human readers was compared by calculating accuracy with Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals. Fifty patients (mean age 63 +/- 10 years) with 66 pulmonary nodules (40 malignant) were evaluated. ACC values for radiomic features analysis vs. radiologists based on CT alone (0.68; 95%CI: 0.56, 0.79 vs. 0.59; 95%CI: 0.46, 0.71), T2w alone (0.65; 95%CI: 0.52, 0.77 vs. 0.68; 95%CI: 0.54, 0.78), DWI alone (0.61; 95%CI:0.48, 0.72 vs. 0.73; 95%CI: 0.60, 0.83), combined T2w/DWI (0.73; 95%CI: 0.60, 0.83 vs. 0.70; 95%CI: 0.57, 0.80), and combined CT/T2w/DWI (0.83; 95%CI: 0.72, 0.91 vs. 0.64; 95%CI: 0.51, 0.75) were calculated. This study is the first to show that by combining quantitative image information from CT, T2w, and DWI datasets, pulmonary nodule assessment through radiomics analysis is superior to using one modality alone, even exceeding human readers' performance.
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.