ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2024
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of AI for Enhancing Computed Tomography Image Quality and Radiation Protection in Radiology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Automated Classification of Lymphoma Subtypes From Histopathological Images Using a U-Net Deep Learning Model: Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Integrating deep learning and radiomics in the differentiation of major histological subtypes of invasive non-mucinous lung adenocarcinoma using positron emission tomography and computed tomography.Translational lung cancer research · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Early-stage invasive lung adenocarcinoma (ADC) characterized by a predominant micropapillary or solid pattern exhibit an elevated risk of recurrence following sub-lobar resection, thus determining histological subtype of early-stage invasive ADC prior surgery is important for formulating lobectomy or sub-lobar resection. This study aims to develop a deep learning algorithm and assess its clinical capability in distinguishing high-risk or low-risk histologic patterns in early-stage invasive ADC based on preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. Methods: Two retrospective cohorts were included: development cohort 1 and external test cohort 2, comprising patients diagnosed with T1 stage invasive ADC. Electronic medical records and CT scans of all patients were documented. Patients were stratified into two risk groups. High-risk group: comprising cases with a micropapillary component ≥5% or a predominant solid pattern. Low-risk group: encompassing cases with a micropapillary component <5% and an absence of a predominant solid pattern. The overall segmentation model was modified based on Mask Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (Mask-RCNN), and Residual Network 50 (ResNet50)_3D was employed for image classification. Results: A total of 432 patients participated in this study, with 385 cases in cohort 1 and 47 cases in cohort 2. The fine-outline results produced by the auto-segmentation model exhibited a high level of agreement with manual segmentation by human experts, yielding a mean dice coefficient of 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-0.87] in cohort 1 and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.85) in cohort 2. Furthermore, the deep learning model effectively differentiated the high-risk group from the low-risk group, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88-0.90) in cohort 1. In the external validation conducted in cohort 2, the deep learning model displayed an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84-0.88) in distinguishing the high-risk group from the low-risk group. The average diagnostic time was 16.00±3.2 seconds, with an accuracy of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.81-0.83). Conclusions: We have developed a deep learning algorithm,
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.