ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
AI-enhanced diagnostic model for pulmonary nodule classification.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Artificial intelligence in thoracic surgery: a narrative review of clinical advances and applications in 2025.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Diagnosis model of early malignant pulmonary nodules based on clinical laboratory data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Narrative review of the application of artificial intelligence-related technologies in the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules with recommendations for clinical practice and future research.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Review
- Differential Radiomics-Based Signature Predicts Lung Cancer Risk Accounting for Imaging Parameters in NLST Cohort.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
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
Background: The identification of benign and malignant pulmonary nodules (BPN and MPN) can significantly reduce mortality. However, a reliable and validated diagnostic model for clinical decision-making is still lacking. Methods: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and electro chemiluminescent immunoassay were utilized to determine the serum concentrations of 7AABs (p53, GAGE7, PGP9.5, CAGE, MAGEA1, SOX2, GBU4-5), and 4TTMs (CYFR21, CEA, NSE and SCC) in 260 participants (72 BPNs and 188 early-stage MPNs), respectively. The malignancy probability was calculated using Artificial intelligence pulmonary nodule auxiliary diagnosis system, or Mayo model. Along with age, sex, smoking history and nodule size, 18 variables were enrolled for model development. Baseline comparison, univariate ROC analysis, variable correlation analysis, lasso regression, univariate and stepwise logistic regression, and decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to reduce and screen variables. A nomogram and DCA were built for model construction and clinical use. Training (60%) and validation (40%) cohorts were used to for model validation. Results: Age, CYFRA21_1, AI, PGP9.5, GAGE7, and GBU4_5 was screened out from 18 variables and utilized to establish the regression model for identifying BPN and early-stage MPN, as well as nomogram and DCA for clinical practical use. The AUC of the nomogram in the training and validation cohorts were 0.884 and 0.820, respectively. Moreover, the calibration curve showed high coherence between the predicted and actual probability. Conclusion: This diagnostic model and DCA could provide evidence for upgrading or maintaining the current clinical decision based on malignancy probability stratification. It enables low and moderate risk or ambiguous patients to benefit from more precise clinical decision stratification, more timely detection of malignant nodules, and early treatment.
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.